Theoretical and Experimental Approaches in Scientific Studies (original) (raw)
Related papers
Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations
2005
Foreword xx 1. Trust, deception, and self-deception xx 2. Care and carelessness xx Case study: The Baltimore affair xx 3. Completeness and selectiveness xx Case study: The Lomborg case and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty xx 4. Competition and collegiality xx Case study: The Gallo-Montagnier affair xx 5. Publishing, authorship, and secrecy xx 6. Contract research xx Case study: The adventures of the Berkhout Committee xx 7. Publicity and media xx Case study: The miracle of cold fusion xx 8. Prevention and remedies xx 9. In conclusion xx References xx About this publication xx Foreword Scientific misconduct can damage the quality of scientific research and the attitude of the public to scientific endeavour. Excessive pressure to perform, blind ambition, or the pursuit of material gain can tempt researchers to adopt a casual attitude to generally accepted rules. It is therefore important to question what is and is not permissible when carrying out scientific research, i.e. what constitutes "good scientific practice". This booklet, Scientific Research: Dilemmas and Temptations, is intended mainly as an aid to students and young researchers in developing their own sense of standards, but it is also relevant for more experienced researchers. It is based on actual research practice, in other words the problems and choices that arise during the various phases of a scientific study. This involves designing the experiment, collecting data, analysing and reporting the results, and the way those results are used. The booklet is not intended as a detailed and dogmatic guide to scientific practice. Scientific research is subject to constant change. It demands creativity and a talent for improvisation, and it is too varied and multifaceted to be the subject of a standardised system of rules and guidelines. Rather, this booklet is intended to encourage discussion of various issues so as to contribute to deliberate, responsible decision-making. The key question is always how one should act correctly from the point of view of science and responsibly from the point of view of ethics when designing, carrying out, and reporting on scientific research. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) has concerned itself with questions of what is desirable and undesirable in the field of science for a number of years now. In 1995, the Academy-together with the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU)-published a memorandum on scientific misconduct. This led to a more detailed memorandum on scientific integrity (2001) and to the setting up by the Academy, the NWO and the VSNU of the National Board for Scientific Integrity (LOWI). It was in the context of these initiatives than the first version of this booklet was published in 2000. This new edition has been revised, expanded, supplemented, and where necessary corrected, partly in the light of comments and criticism on the first edition. The Academy hopes that the new edition will be used as teaching material in lectures and discussion groups and that readers and users will again pass on their own comments and suggestions to the Academy
Chapter 1: Scientific Research
Definition For some reason, probably related to a dislike for math, many people consider the word research and everything the word suggests as unpleasant. But research can be a valuable term. It can lead to uncovering the answers to "impossible" questions. Two basic questions the beginning researcher must learn to answer are how and when to use research methods and statistical procedures. Developing methods and procedures are 3 valuable tasks, but the focus for the majority of research students should be on applications. Although both statisticians and researchers are fundamental in producing research results, their specialties are different (keep in mind that one person may serve in both capacities). Statisticians generate statistical procedures or formulas called algorithms; researchers use these algorithms to investigate research questions and hypotheses. The results of this cooperative effort are used to advance our understanding of the studied phenomenon. Scientific research may be defined as a systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among observed phenomena. This definition contains the basic terms necessary in defining the method of scientific research, and describes a procedure that has been accepted for centuries. However, regardless of its origin, all research begins with a basic question or proposition about a specific phenomenon. For example: Why do viewers select one television program over another? What sections of the newspaper do people read most often? What types of magazine covers attract the widest number of readers? Which types of advertising are most effective in selling specific types of products? Each of these questions could be answered to some degree with a
The two principles that shape scientific research
Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2023
This paper argues that all scientific research is framed by one of two organizing principles that underpin and shape almost every aspect of scientific research as well as nonscientific inquiry. The most commonly employed principle within mainstream science is content determines content. This is a closed, circular principle that is usually unstated within hypotheses but plays a major role in developing methodologies and arriving at conclusions. The second more open principle is context determines content. This principle represents the implied background embedded within hypotheses. The difference between these two principles revolves around the issue of context, with the first principle closing off contexts by ignoring, erasing, or devaluing them, while the second more holistic principle explicitly takes them into account. Each of these research principles has a focus on the explicit detailed nature of 'content' while differing in relation to the source and cause of such content. We argue that the more open and holistic principle of context determines that content is superior in producing reliable evidence, results and conclusions.
Responsibility in Science: The Philosophical View
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Terms of responsibility are relational attributes, i.e., attribution terms. They are to be understood as linguistically, socially, and situationally embedded concepts conventionalized by rules and have to be analyzed accordingly. A structural theory of responsibility, and more differentiated forms and types of responsibility such as relational attribution-based concepts, will be developed schematically in order to do justice to the variety of different uses of the concepts of responsibility, e.g., causal and action responsibility, role responsibility, but also social and (universal) moral and legal responsibility. In this chapter, I apply the general considerations of responsibility to analyze responsibility in science. The responsibility of the researcher in science and technology is a special case of role-specific and moral responsibility in a strategic position. Points to be discussed include known means of implementing responsibility in science, including codes of conduct, ethic...
METHODOLOGY OF SCIENCE: TREATISES, HANDBOOKS AND TEXTS
Literature in or about the methodology of science is analyzed and classified with attention to different criteria. It is shown that the attempts at classification do not render exact results - a clear-cut partition of the "classified" set. Nevertheless, some learning is achieved by the roundabouts of the analysis, even as to put into question some supposedly robust concepts that ask for a revision.
Empirical Philosophy of Science
Science & Education
In a previous editorial, I argued about the importance of clarifying the meanings of concepts in science education. Scientific concepts have important representational and heuristic roles in the acquisition and justification of scientific knowledge because they both represent natural entities, properties, and processes and also make their investigation possible (Arabatzis, 2019). This is why the study of concepts has a central place in philosophy of science. However, there is an ongoing debate about how concepts should be studied, which reflects some of the most important issues in philosophy, such as the limits of empirical inquiry and the status of conceptual analysis. For many philosophers, conceptual analysis is a matter of a priori reflection only. For others, philosophy of science should be continuous with science (Margolis & Laurence, 2014). Empirical philosophy of science looks into the actual conceptualizations and practices of scientists, both now and in the past, in contrast to a theoretical rational reconstruction of what scientists do or ought to do. This empirical approach comprises several different strategies such as the analysis of writings from history of science or of published articles in professional journals, as well as the application of methods from cognitive science in order to analyze the cognitive processes, conceptualizations, and practices of scientists. The research conducted so far has focused mostly on the cognitive processes of scientists or taken an anthropological/ sociological perspective of scientific research (Osbeck & Nersessian, 2015). However, little attention has been given to the meanings that scientists attribute to concepts. Philosophers of science can have several interests when analyzing scientific concepts, such as assessing concepts, improving or modifying concepts, understanding concepts, or describing how scientists think of particular concepts and why. However, to achieve this, it is not enough to look at a sample of historically important writings or textbooks, because the concepts found therein may differ substantially from those that scientists actually use. Rather, it is necessary to empirically examine how and why scientists themselves construe and use particular concepts. This can be achieved by conducting empirical research during which scientists define and apply concepts (Machery, 2016). Karola Stotz and colleagues (2004), investigated whether scientists working in different fields defined the "gene" concept differently. Their initial assumption was that evolutionary biologists would conceptualize genes in terms of phenotypic effects, whereas molecular biologists would refer to features and processes at the molecular level. However, when Science & Education
IZA World of Labor, 2018
If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
Process and Product in Scientific Research
A common approach to problem solving is to first specify an end we wish to achieve and then seek the appropriate means to achieve that end. In the case of the sciences the traditional end-a body of true propositions so firmly established that they will never have to be reconsidered-is not achievable. In the present paper I address this situation by focusing first on the process of scientific research and then considering the products that we can achieve through this research.