Science And The Natural Sciences

Primary research gives more accurate result then secondary result. It cost a lot as you should research everything yourself or should hire a person. Primary research takes long time to come to conclusion while secondary research takes short time and are easy to research. Primary research is based on raw data and

Primary data is when you collect and gather the data first hand in the form of a questionnaire, survey, telephone or interview. This data is specific to the company and did not exist beforehand. Sometimes referred to as field research.

Primary data is data which your business or you find and gather data to analyse. By you or the business finding the data this makes it primary because the data belongs to you making it original. The different ways to gather data is surveys and interviews by collecting data like this makes it original and reliable.

1. Decide if the mineral is metallic or non-metallic based on its luster and streak.

The business letter form that the text says imparts a feeling of directness without a strong personal touch is the ________________ form.

Primary research. This has to be gathered first and to answer certain questions that are related to the project; therefore it is more time consuming and expensive. Primary research is considered to be a reliable source of information as it is coming directly from consumers.

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Before facts and theories can be connected, there need to be fundamentals first that are established within disciplines. How does culture influence a knower 's fundamental beliefs? Culture plays a large role in a knower’s interpretation of any situation. The basis of a discipline

Science has and always will play a constant important role in my daily life, maybe more so than others. Science for me has not always been my strong subject in school and I very easily tend to get intimidated. But when I look at my daily life and realize how much science plays a role in it, I cannot help but smile. Science is not at all bad, it has allowed me to do many things every day, even if I do not take the time to stop and think about it, it is there. From the way the microwave heats up the water for my coffee every morning or the way my body digests the food I eat every meal and makes

They can also measure this through sending out a survey to customers who did not accept the organizations quote. Survey questions can include reasons for the quote being rejected, such as cost, quote turnaround time, and delivery lead time. One of the major advantages of primary data is that it can be “more specific to the problem being studied” (Kerin, R.A., Hartley, S.W., Berkowitz, E.N., and Rudelius, W., 2006) and one of the main disadvantages is the cost associated and time associated with collection. So what is the difference between primary and secondary research?

Why do young bright minds of India want to take up science or research as a promising career path in the first place? Doesn’t it feel like a risk? What career opportunities does one have after getting a PhD? These questions are bugging me quite a lot these days. For most of us, born and brought up in middle class urban society are taught right from the start to work hard and be well educated enough to secure a good job. Seemingly it is the gateway to lead a comfortable life. I think in India it is the most important thing in life. Getting a decent job. It’s the only thing that matters. No matter how creative you are and harbor any kind of alternate ambitions otherwise it becomes secondary after a point. So growing up, the thought of pursuing science and research could only be such a far-fetched dream for many of us I guess.

I chose this question since it has actually stayed with me for the whole TOK course. I found it very difficult to find a link, for example, of perception in math or how reason could fit into art. A network suggests that more than one way of knowing can collaborate within another in order to gain knowledge in a particular Area of knowing. The statement implies that not using a network of WOK to gain knowledge is unwise. Thus, I wish to examine how we best acquire knowledge in Natural Sciences and History. My two central knowledge questions are, how reliable is it to use only one way of knowing in one Area of knowledge in order to gain knowledge? and Is it essential to use a network of ways of knowing to acquire good knowledge?

Disagreement may aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences because disagreement leads to new discoveries. Disagreement is about gathering reliable knowledge as well as using this newfound knowledge, and occurs when a group fails to reach a consensus over the logic of an argument. Knowledge is composed of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education. Two areas of knowledge that are impacted by disagreement are human science and natural science. Human science is the study of human behavior and how humans gather information. Natural science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world. In order for a disagreement to occur, one must be familiar with the subject and have his or her own prediction that is different from the norm. Therefore, to advance knowledge in the areas of human and natural science, people must disagree. The roles of logic, reason, and emotion will be investigated to see how they are used to help gain new knowledge in both human and natural science.

Knowledge can be accepted or refuted, hence what determines accepted knowledge? I believe ‘accepted knowledge’ is that which has been tested whereby sufficient evidence has been collected to support certain knowledge claims. However, it is important to consider times when knowledge has been refuted. Despite strong belief that we possess objective facts, through research and technological progresses, such facts become re-interpreted in light of new evidence and discoveries. Personally, discarded knowledge refers to theories or laws being dismissed as new-found information proves more accurate. However, knowledge can also be amended as it is evolves. Knowledge is often discarded or amended due to technological progresses or changing social trends. Taking both a natural and a human science in IB, I feel that knowledge is more readily discarded in the natural sciences whereas in the human sciences knowledge is amended as certain theories evolve. This suggests that knowledge is not static hence leading to the main knowledge issue which will be explored: “To what extent is knowledge within the human and natural sciences provisional?

Before Einstein, Scientists believed that light waves travelled through a medium called ether. Einstein proved that ether was irrelevant and that light doesn’t travel through a medium. Einstein proved this by figuring out that the speed of light was constant, and in order for ether to be the medium light waves travel through, the speed of light would change depending on the observer. This discovery was one piece of the Specific Theory of Relativity.