External Reality Of Facts Is Based On Previous Knowledge Essay

There are four main characteristics of the scientific method: observation/measurements, make an assumption, test the assumption, and revise the assumption. The first stage we make an observations. For instance, I notice that my peppers in my garden are not growing well. I am going to assume this is because I did not water that area well enough. So I am now going to test my assumption. This is done by watering the peppers in my garden more frequently. Lastly, I am going to see if my assumption was correct. If my peppers only needed more water, they will begin to grow more rapidly. It is also possible that my assumption was wrong, and that my peppers were getting enough water; however, there could be something wrong with the soil, temperature, etc. These are the four main characteristics of the scientific method; it is important to note that our assumptions sometimes be wrong, thus it is always important that we test our assumptions to make sure we are correct.

Scientific method is used to solve empirical problems and discover empirical truth in an empirical pattern. The scientific method involves several steps, the first step is observing or asking question, second step is forming a hypothesis, third step is testing the hypothesis or experimenting, fourth step is confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis. In the simplest terms, scientific method is a process of trial and error. To give a concise example consider vehicle repair. Every weekend handyman, or every high school student with a passing interest in autos knows about the method of trial and error. If your car is starting to run poorly, and you take matters into your own hands in an attempt to fix it. The first step is to guess the nature of the problem for example faulty emission or low brake fluid. Acting on your instinct, you proceed to exchange a part, adjust a setting, or replace a fluid, and then see if the car runs better. If your initial guess is incorrect and the car is not improved, you revise your guess, make another adjustment, and once again test the car. With patience and enough guesses, this process will often result in an operable car. However, depending on one's

Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation

The scientific method is a five step processes that is observation and research, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and conclusion. In the observation and research stage it is the first step to understanding a problem, this would require research. The hypothesis is having a possible answer to a problem or outcome. The prediction is the answer based on if the hypothesis is true or not and if it is true than an assumed prediction can be made. Finally when all the guess work is done it is time to experiment to find the answer. The experiment stage can answer the problem or answer an unattended problem. The conclusion is the answer that the conclusion gives but this doesn’t mean there is am solution for the problem ("Scientific Method," n.d.).

The Scientific Method is the standardized procedure that scientists are supposed to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary representation of our surroundings. To follow the Scientific Method is to stick very tightly to a order of experimentation. First, the scientist must observe the phenomenon of interest. Next, the scientist must propose a hypothesis, or idea in which the experiments will be based around. Then, through repeated experimentation, the hypothesis can either be proven false or become a theory. If the hypothesis is proven to be false, the scientist must reformulate his or her ideas and come up with another hypothesis, and the experimentation begins again. This

One definition of knowledge is true belief based on strong evidence. What makes evidence “strong” enough and how can this limit be established?

Furthermore, there are three main aspects which were customarily associated with a science: metaphysical, theoretical and methodological assumptions. Under metaphysical it is believed that to gain scientific status requires the certainty that the subject matter i.e. human thought/ behaviour, is similar to that of other accepted sciences. This could then be true for Psychology, as particularly since Darwin’s suggestion of a continuity between behaviours of humans and other species, behaviour has become more scrutinised. However, this must be assumed in respect of determinism, suggesting predictions could be made. ‘Heisenbergs uncertainty principle’ suggests that when relating evidence of indeterminism within the universe to human behaviour, it proves ambiguous, and with parts of the discipline believing strongly in free will it seems difficult to establish a common ground (Valentine E.R. page 2).

Knowledge can be produced using a variety of different methods. However, in the natural sciences sense perception through observation is used primarily. This can be seen through the work of researchers who often observe the results of experiments and trends in order to analyze different phenomena and perspectives. While there are many scientific methods based on scientific thinking using logic and predictability, the idea that

The subject of this paper has at least five names. Documentary Hypothesis and JEDP Theory are the most common. In this paper, this scholarly position will always be referred to as Documentary Hypothesis with a few exceptions.

This essay analyzes Goldstein piece written on facts. In Goldstein’s writing, he discusses what should be considered when determining what is a fact and what is not a fact. He gives many examples of when something that may be considered a fact is actually incorrect and should not be. Additionally, he provides many things to look for when determining the relevance of a fact and when deciding how to use them properly. This essay will also make use of Carnap’s position to examine Goldstein’s position. This essay defends the thesis that Goldstein is correct in the way he questions the factors that are considered when identifying what facts are because they could be inaccurate if not properly described, may not be relevant, or could be based on incorrect observations.

Although it is irrefutable that both Aristotle and Isaac Newton are great scientists and have made phenomenal contributions to scientific development, their scientific methods vary to a large extent. With reference to Scientific Method in Practice, Aristotle investigated the world by using inductions from observations to infer general principles and deductions from those principles to conduct further observational research (Gauch, 2003), while in Isaac Newton's Scientific Method, the author describes Newton’s method as aiming to turn theoretical questions into ones which can be explained by mathematical ideas and measurement from phenomena, and to establish that propositions inferred from phenomena are provisionally guides to further research

Natural science employs a myriad amount of repetition. From repetition scientists establish facts, and with facts, they establish theories – or hypotheses. The results of scientific investigations are nearly always published or otherwise public, and thus false information should not be spread. Miscalculation can and frankly does always happen, but they should be considered in the conclusion – something can even be learned from them. Additionally, theories that are not proven with facts can lead to dangers. For example, if the hypothesis is that when y is changed from medicine y, it can then be used on humans. If this is not tested, it can lead to health problems and environmental issues. Furthermore, confirmation bias should always be considered when making a scientific investigation. Confirmation bias means a tendency to search information that proves already existing opinions and hypotheses of a person. Science should be as objective as possible, and it should not reflect individual thoughts. In conclusion, science should be objective, and false information should not be spread in order to avoid erroneous

Science tries to posit explanations for our existence here and for the existence of everything around us. No matter how many “proofs” exist though, each has to have derived from some “thought” or “idea” that has no concreteness to it. As Hume first explains in his Enquiry, there are relations of ideas that lead us to justify certain scientific proofs empirically. Kant calls this analytic versus synthetic.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

The nature and process of science are a collection of things, ideas, and guidelines. “The purpose of science is to learn about and understand our universe more completely” (Science works in specific ways, 3). Science works with evidence from our world. If it doesn’t come from the natural world, it isn’t science. You need to be creative and have flexible thoughts and ideas if you want to be a scientist. Science always brings up new ideas and theories and if you aren’t flexible to those ideas you can’t be a scientist. Science has been in our world for a long time. It is deep into our history and our cultures. The principals of science; are all about understanding our world using the evidence we collect. If we can’t collect evidence on something we simply cannot understand it. If we don’t understanding something about our world, science says that we can learn about it by collecting evidence (Science has principals, 4). Science is a process; it takes time. You don’t immediately come to a conclusion for your hypothesis a few minutes