When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
ANALYSIS of “The Myth of ‘Practice Makes Perfect’” by Annie Murphy Paul Central claim: Mastery of a skill demands deliberate practice, focusing on improving weak areas, rather than just spending time repeating the activity (Explicit). Reason: Improvement at a skill only occurs when the practitioner works to notice and eliminate errors through practice. Evidence: • Authoritative opinion from cognitive psychologist Gary Marcus argues that deliberate practice is much more effective than unfocused just-for-pleasure practice. • Marcus cites studies that show that working to improve weaknesses is more likely to result in improvement than just spending more time practicing. • Authoritative opinion from a 1993 Anders Ericsson paper suggests that although practice focusing on fixing errors may not be the most enjoyable, it is probably the most effective.
As for the procedures in the article itself, there seems to be an over-reliance on anecdotal evidence, with the argument being supported with stories about one person or with hypothetical situation. There is a distinct lack of hard data, but as the author acknowledges that there is a need for more empirical research, this should not necessarily be taken against her. Furthermore, this article is a part of a mini-series dealing with this topic and
Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation. Frankfurt’s statement holds water, because it is a documented argument that elegantly depicts the fight between lies or bullshit being more problematic. I agree with Frankfurt, because I myself am guilty of bullshitting my way through a few essays I have written in the past. I believe bullshit is worse than lying because you don’t think as much about the topic you are speaking about. When you lie about something, you put a lot of thought into it and decide yourself whether the truth or a lie is better for you.
I disagree with certain idea and issue Rene Descartes argues about in his passage. His beliefs of skepticism at points were valid at times but every human has a right to believe, do anything or create what they want to believe in their mind. To make it feel real is up to the person because we control our emotions which control our mind set to think if we are being trick to having ten fingers or to believe there is no god that created this world we call earth. The scope of knowledge in this reading "Meditations on first philosophy" by Rene Descartes is the truth of doubt. Doubt causes people to believe that you do not know something when you actually do.
Descartes then begins questioning most of his, and in essence, our, beliefs. He explores our many senses and reiterates that what the senses have taught us throughout our lives is not necessarily the truth. According to Descartes’ we have become so prone to believing everything taught to us by the manner in which we sense things and by our experiences that this has become our truth. This truth that has been created for us “from or through,” our senses often deceives us and forces us into believing in false truths. He uses three examples or ideas that question the existence of truth and of all that he has learnt.
Selfperception affects an individual’s self-efficacy skills, therefore affecting how an individual will communicate their experiences. While self-perception is an important trait to take into consideration when dealing with self-reporting, it does however, as mentioned, affect the validity of the results due to individuals underreporting and over reporting their actions. Comparisons of Limitations All three articles discussed the limitation of self-reporting, more so in Article 1. While self-reporting is indeed a valuable asset, self-reporting at times is affected due to individuals underreporting their behavior, as well as over reporting it (Hauge et al., 2009). Underreporting occurs due to individuals being dishonest regarding their behavior, therefore causing an error in the research done.
There cannot be a wrong unless there is something that is right to compare it to. In the Law of Human Nature, C.S Lewis sets forth the foundational ideas regarding right and wrong. The most basic yet most important concept is that without the knowledge of what is right; humans cannot make the claim that something is wrong. By pointing out that one’s idea is not correct one is inadvertently admitting that he believes in a standard of right and wrong. C.S Lewis points out that all humans have a tendency to quarrel.
It is necessary and possible for science to deliberately exclude any * subjective/ emotional reactions * imaginative projections * valuations * expectations from our scientific dealings with reality if not avoided the resultant knowledge will be deceptive and untrustworthy what should be avoided is any form of * religious * social * political commitment of the knower attaining knowledge these are unjustified and untested prejudices which impair an impartial view of and grip on reality. these prevent objective reliable knowledge of reality. when done properly it yields knowledge of things in the world and also of the connections between these things as they really are: facts have to speak through direct perception for themselves in a neutral and unhindered way. *
51. I understand that many researchers think the use of deception in research is necessary because human subjects are sensitive to how others perceive them and how they perceive themselves to be. These researchers believe that this self- consciousness will lead to inaccurate research results. I, however, do not think that researchers should ever use deception when conducting research with humans simply because it is unethical. When intentionally deceiving any participant, you risk harming them because the integrity of the informed consent process is jeopardized.