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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of

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.”

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

‘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.

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.

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.

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