chapter 1 transcript formatted.docx

Lecture Transcript: Chapter 1 - Science and Scientific Research Welcome everyone, today, we're diving into an exciting journey through the realm of science, scientific research, and research methods. We'll start by exploring a fundamental question: What is research? As we'll see, answers to this que...

Lecture Transcript: Chapter 1 - Science and Scientific Research Welcome everyone, today, we're diving into an exciting journey through the realm of science, scientific research, and research methods. We'll start by exploring a fundamental question: What is research? As we'll see, answers to this question can vary widely depending on whom you ask. Some might talk about researching online for the best shopping deals, while others might mention scientific polls or students scouring the internet for their projects. But what makes research 'scientific'? Let's unravel this mystery together." It is important to stress that research methods is not simply a list of rules or guidelines that must be followed to ensure objectivity or sound judgment, but rather, an outlook or perspective on the world. Each day, we are bombarded by information and forced to make important decisions that may affect our own lives or the lives of millions of others. Through the use of rigorous observation and the application of scientific tools, individuals can become better consumers of information. A skill that I guarantee will change your life forever. In fact, the empirical reality that you once held so dear, may simply vanish. "So, what sets scientific research apart? Two critical elements: firstly, it must contribute to a body of science; and secondly, it needs to follow the scientific method. We'll discuss these in more detail as we progress. Remember, not all forms of research meet these criteria." "Now, let's shift our focus to understanding 'science' itself. The word 'science' comes from the Latin word 'scientia,' meaning knowledge. But it's more than just difficult courses in school; science is a systematic body of knowledge gained through the scientific method. This includes both natural science, dealing with physical phenomena, and social science, which focuses on human behavior and societies." "Natural sciences, like physics or biology, are precise and deterministic. For example, experiments in physics should yield consistent results regardless of who conducts them. In contrast, social sciences, like psychology or sociology, deal with more subjective and variable aspects of human experience." "Scientific knowledge comprises laws and theories explaining various phenomena. Laws are observed patterns, while theories offer systematic explanations. For instance, Newton's Laws of Motion in physics provide a foundation for classical mechanics." "In scientific research, we operate on two levels: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical level is about developing concepts and theories about natural or social phenomena. The empirical level, on the other hand, is about testing these theories against reality. This back-and-forth movement between theory and observation is what drives scientific progress." "Our scientific inquiry can take two forms: inductive or deductive. In inductive research, we start with data and observations to develop theories. Deductive research, meanwhile, tests existing theories against new empirical data. Both are crucial in the advancement of science." Let’s take a deeper dive and examine the two more closely. Inductive reasoning is a type of logical thinking that involves forming generalizations based on specific observations and experiences. It is essentially a process that begins with particular pieces of evidence and moves toward broader generalizations and theories. Inductive logic is probabilistic, meaning it deals with the likelihood or probability of the derived conclusions being true, but it does not guarantee certainty. Imagine a botanist studying plant growth under different light conditions. She observes that plants grow faster under blue light in ten different experiments. From these specific instances, she inductively infers that blue light generally accelerates plant growth. This conclusion, while plausible and supported by observations, is not certain; further studies could reveal exceptions or additional factors. Deductive reasoning works in the opposite direction compared to inductive reasoning. It starts with a general statement or hypothesis and uses logical steps to reach a specific conclusion. Deductive reasoning is considered more 'truth-preserving' because if the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true. It is often used in formal sciences like mathematics and logic. Consider the following premises: "All birds have feathers" (a general statement). "A robin is a bird" (a specific instance). Using deductive reasoning, one can conclude that "A robin has feathers." This conclusion is logically derived from the general principle that all birds have feathers, applied to the specific case of a robin. In scientific research, both inductive and deductive reasoning are used. Scientists often use inductive reasoning to form hypotheses and theories based on observed phenomena. They then use deductive reasoning to test these hypotheses and theories. Although different, inductive and deductive reasoning are not mutually exclusive and often work in tandem. For example, a researcher might use inductive reasoning to propose a theory, then apply deductive reasoning to test it through experiments. In conclusion, inductive and deductive logic are two fundamental aspects of human reasoning, each with its distinct approach and utility. Inductive logic allows us to create new theories and generalizations based on observed patterns, making it instrumental in exploratory research and the development of new hypotheses. Deductive logic, by offering a framework to test these hypotheses in a structured manner, ensures that our theories are logically consistent and grounded in established facts. Together, they form the backbone of scientific inquiry and critical thinking, allowing us to navigate and make sense of the complex world around us. "Moving on, scientific research can also be categorized into exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory types. Exploratory research is often the first step in a sequence of studies analyzing a social phenomenon that is largely unknown. Exploratory research most often addresses the “what” question. Exploratory researchers frequently use qualitative techniques to keenly observe and collect data for analysis. Descriptive research requires a more developed idea about a social phenomenon. Here, researchers engage in clearly describing or detailing a social setting or relationship. Descriptive research focuses on “how” and “who” questions. When researchers engage in explanatory research, they are actively attempting to explain and answer the “why” question. Thus, explanation builds on already existing knowledge collected about a social phenomenon as a result of more basic exploratory and descriptive studies "We should also appreciate how scientific thought evolved over centuries. From theological precepts to Greek rationalism, from Bacon's empiricism to Kant's subjective experiences and Comte's positivism, the journey of scientific thought is fascinating. Each era added layers to our understanding of what constitutes science and the scientific method." "In the 20th century, positivism faced challenges from anti-positivism. Positivism emphasizes empirical evidence and the scientific method, while anti-positivism focuses on understanding social actions through interpretive means." "Now, let's talk about the scientific method. It's a standardized approach for building scientific knowledge, encompassing techniques for making valid observations and interpreting results. The method is logical, falsifiable and repeatable. It's the backbone of scientific inquiry and is essential for both natural and social sciences." Let’s delve deeper into this concept falsifiability. Falsifiability is a fundamental concept in the philosophy of science that has significant implications for how we conduct scientific inquiry and evaluate theories. Let’s explore the definition, purpose, and application of falsifiability, and provide examples to illustrate its importance. Definition of Falsifiability Falsifiability is the capacity for a statement, hypothesis, or theory to be proven false by empirical evidence or logical argument. Introduced by philosopher Karl Popper in the 20th century, it serves as a demarcation criterion to distinguish scientific theories from non-scientific ones. Purpose of Falsifiability Falsifiability helps to distinguish scientific statements from non-scientific ones. According to Popper, a theory should be considered scientific if it can be empirically tested and potentially falsified. A theory that can be falsified must be constantly tested and re-tested, ensuring a robust and rigorous scientific process. This prevents confirmation bias, where researchers only seek evidence that supports their theories. Falsifiability requires looking for evidence that could disprove a theory. In empirical sciences, researchers formulate hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified. This is fundamental in fields like physics, biology, and psychology. Thus, when developing theories, scientists aim to construct them so they can be empirically tested. If a theory is not falsifiable, it may be considered scientifically invalid. Falsifiability guides the methodological approach in research. It encourages the formulation of clear, testable predictions. Let’s examine some examples Astronomy vs. Astrology: Astronomy is a science because its theories about celestial bodies can be tested and potentially disproven (e.g., predictions about solar eclipses). Astrology, however, makes vague predictions that are not testable in a rigorous, falsifiable manner. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity: This theory made specific predictions about the bending of light near a massive object, which could be tested during a solar eclipse. The theory was falsifiable – if the light did not bend as predicted, the theory would have been disproven. Freudian Psychoanalysis: Freud's theories on the unconscious mind are often criticized for being non-falsifiable because they can interpret any behavior to fit their theories, making them immune to empirical testing. Evolution vs. Creationism: Evolution, as a scientific theory, makes falsifiable predictions about genetic changes and fossil records. Creationism, however, often relies on supernatural explanations that cannot be tested or falsified through empirical observation. In conclusion, falsifiability is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. It ensures that scientific theories remain subject to continuous testing and potential refutation, thereby fostering an environment of constant questioning and refinement. This principle does not imply that falsifiable theories are inherently false; rather, it emphasizes that they must be structured in a way that allows for empirical testing and potential refutation. By applying falsifiability, science remains dynamic, open to new evidence, and constantly evolving in the pursuit of understanding the world. Moving on… "To conduct scientific research effectively, one needs both methodological and theoretical skills. Methodological skills are the practical 'know-how' of carrying out research, while theoretical skills involve understanding and developing the conceptual framework of the research. Great scientists, like Einstein or Darwin, were masters in both." "As we conclude today's lecture, I invite you to reflect on the vast and varied landscape of scientific research. From the precision of natural sciences to the variability of social sciences, and from empirical evidence to theoretical frameworks, science is a rich tapestry of knowledge and inquiry. Next time, we'll delve deeper into specific research methodologies and their applications Remember, the journey through scientific research is as fascinating as the discoveries we make along the way. See you in our next session!"