What Makes Something Scientifically Proven and What Makes Science Credible:
According to Dr. Hansen’s presentation over evaluating scientific research, there are five common errors in scientific reasoning. Provincialism, hasty conclusions, questionable cause, suppressed evidence, and false dilemma. These are all things that we need to consider before saying that an experiment would support the hypothesis being tested. In order for something to be scientifically proven we have to analyze the entire experiment.
First, the researcher must operationally define all of the necessary terms for the experiment to eliminate misinterpretation of what the results are implying. Researchers must clearly specify the population that they are studying, identify the time frame in which the research was conducted, and specify the tools that were used for measurement. The tools must be reliable, valid, and adequately sensitive to measure the defined variable that is being tested.
Experimenters often make inferences about the results that we need to question instead of blindly accept. Causation is often asserted based on the fact that one thing happened after another when in reality they may not have been linked at all. Just because two variables are correlated does not mean that the first event caused the second event to occur.
Credible science is something that can be repeatedly successful. By successful, I mean the same results occur over and over again without error. However, just because science is credible does not mean that it is the absolute truth and that we should accept it as so. We can only accept the researcher’s answer as the best answer for now. Babbie suggests that the basis of truth is agreement. He says, “it is essential to recognize that scientific knowledge at any given time is what scientists agree it is”
First, the researcher must operationally define all of the necessary terms for the experiment to eliminate misinterpretation of what the results are implying. Researchers must clearly specify the population that they are studying, identify the time frame in which the research was conducted, and specify the tools that were used for measurement. The tools must be reliable, valid, and adequately sensitive to measure the defined variable that is being tested.
Experimenters often make inferences about the results that we need to question instead of blindly accept. Causation is often asserted based on the fact that one thing happened after another when in reality they may not have been linked at all. Just because two variables are correlated does not mean that the first event caused the second event to occur.
Credible science is something that can be repeatedly successful. By successful, I mean the same results occur over and over again without error. However, just because science is credible does not mean that it is the absolute truth and that we should accept it as so. We can only accept the researcher’s answer as the best answer for now. Babbie suggests that the basis of truth is agreement. He says, “it is essential to recognize that scientific knowledge at any given time is what scientists agree it is”
Real World Example:
It is reasonable to question the credibility of science when we as humans are the ones creating the apparatus and inventing the tools to observe what we want to observe. Researchers use microscopes and telescopes and so many other highly technological instruments to observe things that would otherwise be observable and that's where the controversy arises. If we cannot see them with the bare eye, then are we artificially creating an image that may not in fact be there.
Attached is an article about "ghost particles" that researchers have been able to visualize. A scientists developed an apparatus out of ice that traps neutrinos inside. This is a great example of observing something that otherwise would be unseen to the human eye. The real question is, how can we be sure that it is the neutrino that they are actually seeing? Couldn't it just be a particle that the instrument was designed to reveal? These are questions that there
Attached is an article about "ghost particles" that researchers have been able to visualize. A scientists developed an apparatus out of ice that traps neutrinos inside. This is a great example of observing something that otherwise would be unseen to the human eye. The real question is, how can we be sure that it is the neutrino that they are actually seeing? Couldn't it just be a particle that the instrument was designed to reveal? These are questions that there