The Scientific Science Of Science

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

The scientific method continues to be misrepresented in public schools all over the world. Students are being taught that there is a beginning and an end to the scientific method, and that everything in between is protocol and must be followed chronologically. “Ask a question, do some research, come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, understand your data, make your conclusion!” a grade six science teacher will tell their students. “It’ll be on your quiz!”. However, what those students are not being taught is that the scientific method has never been, and will never be a linear process. Scientists constantly revisit different steps of the process in order to better understand the subject matter; sometimes it can take many years to

The positivism perspective is an extension to the empiricism view on knowledge that states that knowledge comes from induction and observable experiences and that this knowledge is used to explain social phenomena (Benton & Craib, 2011). Nevertheless, the empiric view of knowledge on which positivism is based has long been subject to limitations. Immanuel Kant noted for instance that knowledge does not only come from the senses but also from a basic pallet of conceptual knowledge we all have. Furthermore, the interpretation of observations can differ due to the different way everyone acquires concepts. The claims done by Staman and Slob (2012) mentioned earlier are analyzed below for using this perspective on science.

Empirical science’s theories and knowledge should never be imposed or blindly accepted without self-exploration. Since the planet is complex and contains so much uncertainty, whenever a new theory adapts or when we accept the prior theory, scientists should always test or observe upon if the theory is compatible with the time period. Learning knowledge is a serious matter and should be never forgotten by the

Science is far from ‘perfect’. As it is conducted by human beings, it is only natural that mistakes and inconsistencies are likely to occur. However, there is a distinct line between work that is genuine and that of work that has been purposely falsified to produce a desired result. This is known as ‘pseudoscience’ (or scientific misconduct) and is largely responsible for the wealth of controversy that has been brought upon science.

Introduction: The Scientific Method is a method utilized by scientists all around the world. There are many reasons for its universality such as its aid in objectively answering questions and coming to valid conclusions, its demanding organization which forces scientists to form hypotheses and carefully follow and document their methodology to the letter, and lastly it aids in the validity and repeatability of the results of experiments. In general the scientific method, aids scientists in answering the uncertainties that plague life objectively and in a way that can be repeated by other scientists globally so as to uphold or disprove results.

In this paper I discuss the views for and against the scientific method, induction and induction as a scientific method. The scientific method has been proven to be successful countless times, but it has its drawbacks as well, if observations do not follow the predictable laws it cannot be explain by the method. Induction has been used a lot in the scientific method successfully, in many cases it is illogical but not much emphasis should be put as we are always destined to run in to problems when inductively justifying rationally.

The reading by William McComas covered the ten most popular myths in the world of science. Widespread believed myths such as a hypothesis being nothing more than just an educated guess and the idea that science can answer all questions were mentioned in the text. The author not only lists the ten myths but also debunks them with explanations and states that students such as myself believe most of these myths. He attributes the belief of these myths by students to a lack of science philosophy content in teacher education programs and the misguided teaching of the nature of science in high school textbooks.

However, one must take in account that the scientists have been shaped by their teachers, professors, and mentors. Once again, we must remain aware of any a priori assumptions that can be used in experiments. Finally, it is important to remember that science can only answer questions that we craft, it cannot give us answers to question we have not yet thought of. Science is a reasonable and wise place to look for truth, as long as one is fully aware of the internal

science is done, 4) importance of data and evidence we can measure, 5) the culture of science.

‘The Ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly test and retest each others results’ – To What extent would you agree with this claim in the natural and human sciences.

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.

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.

One of the famous, influential philosophers in the 20th century, Karl Popper, includes striking ideas of his scientific view. His aim was to understand science. Popper called the problem of distinguishing science from non-science the “problem of demarcation” (Smith, 58). Popper proposed a solution to the problem, and it was the “Falsificationism”. He described endorsing a view of scientific validity based on a conception of “falsifiability.” Falsifiability is an ability to prove that hypothesis or a theory is proven false. If the theory was falsified, then it is scientific, and if it is not, then it is unscientific. Falsifiability was claimed that a hypothesis is scientific if and only if it has the potential to be refuted by some possible observation, and to be scientific, a hypothesis has to take a risk, has to “stick its neck out” (Smith, 58). If the theory has no risk, it can’t be proven but can be falsified, and therefore it is not scientific. Popper developed the theory of falsification that some theories are never going around. He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation (Smith, 58) The purpose of Popper’s use of falsifiability was to distinguish scientific from non-scientific theories, and Popper included his ideas of science and pseudo-science. Popper wanted to distinguish science from “pseudo-science”. According to Popper’s idea of falsification, the observable evidence can disprove scientific

“In the field of physical science it has been proved that absolutely everything can be scientifically reduced to one ultimate invisible Essence, something which cannot be contacted by the physical senses. It is therefore only reasonable to say that originally everything must have, and still does, come from It. According to one 's way of thinking, different names are given to It: Energy, Principle, Universal Intelligence, Universal Mind, Consciousness, Spirit, God.”