Theory of Knowledge - ‘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

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

In the course manual there is a discussion between a scientist and a sceptic. The scientist believes that induction has been used by science for ages and that has been successful. That natural selection has made us into inductive inference machines and to believe that

Chalmers represents the traditional inductivist view with his statement on science. An inductivist makes observations, then creates a general statement that aims to explain the encountered phenomenon. However, Karl Popper, another scientific philosopher, has completely rejected this scientific method and has argued against the sole use of induction when conducting scientific research. Unsatisfied with Chalmers’ method, and the traditional inductive method in general, he instead made his own ‘version’ of the scientific method, dubbed ‘the hypothetico-deductive method’. These two scientific methods contrast each other, and to demonstrate their difference Chalmers’ statement will be evaluated using the typical view of one who subscribes to Popper’s ‘hypothetico-deductive’ method of falsification. I will then evaluate the two methods, commenting on their individual limitations and merits.

While induction is only one of the five parts of the inductivist account of science, it is one of the most important steps. Induction is the process by which scientists make a leap of thought from observation to theory, and if induction has flaws, then the new theory must unquestionably contain flaws. Regardless of these errors, a scientist, according to an inductivist philosopher, will still accept a particular scientific theory if it can be validly induced from factual observation and experiment.

Science is revised constantly; progressive observations that support and expand on existing ideas are documented. When new knowledge is interpreted by scientists, they must perform a series of experimental trials. These observations can either confirm or contradict the analysis, both are beneficial to resolving the experiment. Scientific explanations are dependent of proof. For example, when a new theory is published, the scientific method for the examination is accessible for others to review. The public has the capacity to acquire the experiment's reports and contribute that data to their own hypothesis. Science is justified through the combination of solutions. Current ideas are continually challenged by others attempting to modify and simplify them into a universal

Karl Popper was critical of inductive methods used in science. He argued that there is a chain of justifying arguments that could never be complete, therefore an original statement that is made can never receives the justification that it needs (Popper 505-506). He was a firm believer in the concept of falsification, emphasizing that we can never be sure that a theory is true but we can be sure that a theory is false. He continues to explain that all inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. Popper identifies that no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory there is always potential for future observations to refute the claim (Popper 426). For example, if millions of white swans were observed, using inductive reasoning, we could come up with a theory that all swans are white. However, no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this information does not provide us with justification for the conclusion that all swans are white (Popper 426). Therefore induction cannot yield certainty. For scientists to continue to rely on inductive reasoning to

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

Reproducibility in science is as important as any new hypothesis or discovery. Currently, many practitioners believe there is a reproducibility crisis. Despite that scientists conduct sound research, reproducibility is still very low. In my opinion, irreproducible research should be well considered as a part of enhanced knowledge since, in part, nature tends to be chaotic and hence irreproducible. Better controls in the research process, however, can improve comprehension and utility of research results.

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

One issue that Carl Hempel addresses in his book, “Philosophy of Natural Science,” is an argument that scientist should provisionally accept a hypothesis that is confirmed, although not proven, is completely warranted. This argument is driven by the theory that if a hypothesis has successfully passed many different tests, then it should completely reasonable to accept even if it may eventually change or dismissed as determined incorrect. Either way, a confirmed test should lead to successful and positive results and possible a future complete and accurate answer. I agree with his argument and believe that scientists can rationally accept hypotheses as I will discuss in further detail throughout this paper. Hempel believed in “Sophisticated

The following essay aims to discuss the inconsistencies between the inductivist and Popper’s points of view of science rationality of science in light of claims that the scientific method is inductive yet an inductive method is no. I think is rational to say that inductivist view of science has significant contradiction that Popper’s view solves. To support Popper’s view my argument will introduce the inductivist and falsificationsist views and I will focus in showing the issues of considered science as objective, scientific knowledge as proven and nature as uniform as well as the differences between inductivism and falsificationism to the creation of hypothesis.

Barry opens his nonfiction text by emphasizing that certainty is a confident resilience while uncertainty produces frailty, but in a way that sends out opposite outcomes. He enhances this purpose by constantly using repetition with the word uncertainty to amplify how scientific research is an uncertain apparatus. By way of illustration,

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

Facts are statements that are indisputably true. Truthful statements are authentic because they are widely accepted to be accurate and fit reality. When answering the question “given access to the same facts , how is it possible that there can be disagreements between experts in a discipline?”, one must consider the definition of an expert. For the sake of this paper I am defining an expert as someone who excels in their field , and constantly evolves their knowledge as their field progresses. I believe that disagreements between experts when presented with the same facts, occur because of bias. Bias is a sway towards one side or view of a situation or statement. Therefore I ask , how does someone’s personal bias affect their interpretation

Every day, there are scientist/ researchers conducting experiments, or studies, in order to try and prove facts about everyday life. In conducting these experiments, there are the normal, ethical experiments that have continuously gone to prove many different facts that most of us might have not even noticed about ourselves or one another, and then there are the few experiments that are deemed to be unethical and, although still have shown and proved to us different facts about ourselves, really can not be replicated once again because of the amount of controversy caused by them. The experiments and studies such as the Stanley Milgram Obedience experiment, the Stanford Prison and Guards experiment, the Bystander Effect, the David Reimer