Reconceptualizing science involves thinking about
science and relevant concepts differently. It involves concept change, or at
least concept modification. There may be some disagreement regarding at what
point does change mean new concept. Or, how much does a concept need to change
in order to be considered a new concept, rather than a modified concept. Concepts change and are modified over time.
Water, earth and air were once classified as elements, now they are known to be
compounds consisting of element combinations. Science is replete with examples
of concept change. Scientific information is tentative; it changes according to
evidence. The change, ideally, is in congruence with converging evidence and
demonstrates a high level of explanatory coherence. Science, its conceptualizations
and operationalizations are concerned with good epistemic values. Good
epistemic values as described by Paul Thagard (2012) are those of evidential
quality; knowledge values that are in line with logic and evidence (essentially
epistemic rationality characteristics).
Defining
concept: There is a large range of definitions for the term
concept. Defined as: concepts are abstract entities, concepts are replicas of
sense impressions, concepts are mental representations fo units or categories,
concepts are distributed neural representations, and so on. Terminological
confusion can lead to misconception. Of course, this isn't unique to the term
concept. Three of the main
interpretations of concepts, as studied in cognitive science, are those of
prototypes, exemplars and explanatory theories. Another interpretation, the semantic
pointer, is one put forth originally by Chris Eliasmith. "A semantic
pointer is a kind of neural representation whose nature and function is highly
compatible with what is currently known about how brains process information"
(Thagard, 2012, p.304). Thagard asserts that exemplar, prototype and
explanatory elects of concepts can be understood in the view of semantic pointers.
More on semantic pointers:
Abstract (Blouw, et al., 2015)
"The reconciliation of
theories of concepts based on prototypes, exemplars, and theory-like
structures is a longstanding
problem in cognitive science. In response to this problem, researchers have
recently tended to adopt either hybrid theories that combine various kinds of
representational structure, or eliminative theories that replace concepts with
a more finely grained taxonomy of mental representations. In this paper, we
describe an alternative approach involving a single class of mental
representations called “semantic pointers.” Semantic pointers are symbol-like
representations that result from the compression and recursive binding of
perceptual, lexical, and motor representations, effectively integrating
traditional connectionist and symbolic approaches. We present a computational
model using semantic pointers that replicates experimental data from
categorization studies involving each prior paradigm. We argue that a framework
involving semantic pointers can provide a unified account of conceptual
phenomena, and we compare our framework to existing alternatives in accounting
for the scope, content, recursive combination, and neural implementation of
concepts."
Full paper - http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/51fa/7ddfd385d451e5f17cd21cf551896688057b.pdf&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm3_WSTiqx_kvIo8vvxSOipwLKtGiw&nossl=1&oi=scholarr
When talking about concepts with students I define
the term as follows: mental representation of a unit, reflected as patterns of
synaptic activity. Read more about the study of concepts- The Cognitive Science of Science (2012) by Paul
Thagard Cognition
(2013) by Daniel Reisberg
Discussions
on science are often short circuited when science is over simplified. Science
is concept-complex; it consists of multiple components (represented
conceptually as in converging evidence reflected as complex neural circuits-
refer to semantic pointers, ). When discussing the implications and value of
science it is important that its complexity is appreciated. That doesn't mean
all discussions related to science have to be complex; what it means is, the
related concept or concepts being discussed or analyzed should be clearly
stated. As an example, when talking about research methodology, a component of
scientific thinking, is being discussed. But, only a portion, scientific
thinking is much broader than just research methodology. When speaking of
scientific literacy (derived scientific literacy), it is important to not
confuse this with domain specific scientific knowledge. As an example, exercise
literacy (knowledge in science of exercise) is not synonymous with scientific
literacy. There are those who rate high in exercise literacy and also
scientific literacy, point is, they are not interchangeable. Proponents of science and science educators do
a disservice when they misrepresent science.
Scientific
Literacy and Scientific Cognition
But, it's only a theory
“It’s only a theory” is a phrase
often used to suggest that the theory in question is weak. This phrase is
often used as a response to a theory that one doesn’t agree with or
understand. It is imperative to recognize that theory in science is
drastically different than the type of theory discussed in everyday
conversation. In science, theory represents a body of knowledge that offers
an explanation for converging lines of evidence. Science needs theory!
Lay person theory (everyday theory) reflects speculation or a guess
directed at explaining phenomena.
“Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect
of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested
hypotheses.” National Center for Science Education
“The formal scientific definition of
theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a
comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast
body of evidence.” National Academy of Sciences
Read more- It's Only A Theory
https://jamiehalesblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/its-only-theory.html
Limitations
of Peer Review
In the Peer Review Process a
paper is submitted to a journal and evaluated by several reviewers (often
reviewers are individuals with an impressive history of work in the area of
interest-that is, the specific area that the article addresses). After critiquing the paper the reviewers
submit their thoughts to the editor.
Then, based on the commentaries from the reviewers, the editor decideswhether to publish the paper, make
suggestions for additional changes that could lead to publication, or to reject
the paper.
Single
Blind and Double Blind Reviews
In Single Blind Reviews authors
do not know who the reviewers are. In Double
Blind Reviews authors do not know who the reviewers are, nor do reviewers
know the identity of the authors. In
many fields Single Blind Reviews are the norm, while in others Double
Blind Reviews are
preferred. “Peer review is one way
(replication is another) science institutionalizes the attitudes of objectivity
and public criticism. Ideas and
experimentation undergo a honing process in which they are submitted to other
critical minds for evaluation. Ideas
that survive this critical process have begun to meet the criterion of public
verifiability” (Stanovich, 2007, p. 12).
Peer review doesn't guarantee only quality
information will be published. The
Peer Review Process is not perfect, but some researchers suggest it is one of the best safeguards we have
against junk science (Stanovich, 2007). When evaluating the worth of scientific
data, in addition to whether it is published in a peer reviewed journal, it is
important to take into consideration:
funding sources, study replication, study design, sample size,
conflicting interest, sampling error, different measures of reliability and
validity, reporting limitations and other possible criticisms of study. There are good studies that never
get published in peer review publications, and low quality studies are
published by peer review publishers. It
is erroneous to label a study, review, commentary, meta-analysis or any other
scholarly papers as high quality based solely on peer review status. This over
glorification of peer review pervades academia and pop science. Read more- Peer
Review is not the antidote https://jamiehalesblog.blogspot.com/2018/01/peer-review-is-not-antidote.html
Stay tuned for part 2
References available upon request
Posts
