This demarcating of science is a definite way to distinguish the difference between true science and pseudo-science. Before diving into the details of the criterion of demarcation, it is crucial to first understand the significance of demarcating science. In the simplest of reasoning, science is a study based on factuality (it is important to point out that scientific conclusions are however not based on absolute certainty, something I will touch on later). There is a specific process and order in which scientific experiments are conducted, the scientific method, and conclusions are gathered based on very tedious and detail-oriented procedures. That is one of the main reasons why that which is labeled a “science” has a certain level of credibility attached to it.
In other words, they answer the question What drives behaviour? It is important to remember that the following are theories, none of which have been conclusively shown to be valid. Nonetheless, they are helpful in providing a contextual framework for dealing with individuals Process theory is a commonly used form of scientific research study in which events or occurrences are said to be the result of certain input states leading to a certain outcome (output) state, following a set process. Another theory that attempts to explain human behavior is Content theory. Process theory holds that if an outcome is to be duplicated, so too must the process which originally created it, and that there are certain constant necessary conditions for the outcome to be reached.
University of Essex Department of Psychology Discovering Psychology: The science Behind Human Behaviour Discuss the value of the true experiment in psychology 1301109 24/10/2013 979 “A true experimental design as the most accurate form of experimental research, in that it tries to prove or disprove a hypothesis mathematically, with statistical analysis” Shuttleworth (2008). This means that an experimental design basically tries to see how accurate an hypothesis is through statistical analysis. So, for an experiment to be classed as a true experimental design, the sample groups must be assigned randomly, in which there must be a viable control group, only one variable can be manipulated and tested i.e. It is possible to test more than one, but such experiments and their statistical analysis tend to be large and difficult and the tested subjects must be randomly assigned to either control or experimental groups. Therefore, in a true experiment subjects are randomly assigned to the levels of the independent variable.
This essay aims to prove ethical objectivism by using the form of moderate objectivism. I will first prove the truth of the various premises of this argument and then consider the strongest objection against moderate objectivism that is the queerness argument. The queerness argument put forth by Mackie is in favour of error theory. Firstly, there is a need to establish that there is a common human nature; there is a common set of interests that is independent of cultural influences. A common human nature is an ambiguous term to use and it is impossible to establish that everyone have the same interests.
One of the most common errors individual’s make is when attempting to make the distinction between correlation and causation. However, in scientific and psychological findings, distinguishing between these two terms is very important. Simply put, correlation means association or a measure of the extent to which two variables are related (McLeod, 2008). A correlation will identify the variables and looks for a relationship between them. There are two types of correlations: positive correlations and negative correlations.
A major goal in research design is to decrease or control the influence of extraneous variables as much as possible. Controlling extraneous variables enables the researcher to more accurately determine the effect of an independent or treatment variable on a dependent or outcome variable. Researchers attempt to recognize and control as many extraneous variables as possible in quasi-experimental and experimental studies, and specific designs and sample criteria have been developed to control the influence of extraneous variables that might influence the outcomes of studies (Burns & Grove, 2011). One way to do this is by narrowly defining the sampling criteria to make the sample as homogeneous (or similar) as possible to control for extraneous variables. Other methods include randomization or random assignment of subjects to groups; matching subjects on extraneous variables and then assigning them randomly to groups; application of statistical techniques of analysis of covariance; and balancing means and standard deviations of groups (Mcleod,
This is where the convincing element of a thesis and theory should be very persuasive and eminent. Without a major consensus from other experts and other people in that field, a theory cannot be accepted to be true. There are many aspects of both sciences that help make theses and conjectures convincing. These aspects are: observation, collection of empirical evidence, and generally the scientific method. These aspects are the main reasons behind theories being cogent and compelling.
Scientific reasoning is the process, which provides evidence for scientific theory. Induction is common throughout scientific reasoning since scientists’ use inductive reasoning whenever a limited data is used to form more general conclusions (Okasha, 2002). Induction is used to decide whether claims about the world are justified. Inductive reasoning is prevalent throughout science since it is common to have a sample size that does not include all of the possible test subjects needed for the study. This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect.
There is a debate amongst social scientist (researchers) as to the merits and superiority of either quantitative or qualitative research over the other. The following will examine logic and philosophies underlying these methodologies and why one would tend to chose a particular method. However, “in the end” I find myself in agreement with William Trochim (2003). “My sense is that there are some fundamental differences, but that they lie primarily at the level of assumptions about research (epistemological and ontological assumptions) rather than at the level of the data.” And what is data? Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions and values derived from scientific experiments (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2000).
ADEDOYIN ADEOLA (SMC 00113746) Data Collection is key to research study and the type of research methods to be used in collecting relevant data determines the success of any research. Prasad (1993: 1404) suggests that symbolic interaction “rests on the assumption that every organizational situation is likely to be filled with multiple and frequently conflicting interpretations and meanings”. This encourages the use of multiple research methods to capture complexity and contradictions in the data. Accuracy and integrity of research data collection methods is the precursor for error-free research irrespective of methods either quantitative or qualitative data. Quality and validity of data are also vital issue developed during data collection.