“Science is not the mysterious, distant,
smoking-test-tube sort of a priesthood that many imagine it to be. Rather, it
is simply an organized, formal method of finding out.” James Randi
General approach
The scientific approach to knowledge is based on systematic
empiricism (Stanovich, 2007). Observation
itself is necessary in acquiring scientific knowledge, but unstructured observation of
the natural world does not lead to an increased understanding of the world.
“Write down every observation you
make from the time you get up in the morning to the time you go to bed on a
given day. When you finish, you will have a great number of facts, but you will
not have a greater understanding of the world” (Stanovich & Stanovich,
2003, p. 12).
Systematic
Empiricism is systematic because it is structured in a way that allows us
to learn more precisely about the world.
After careful systematic observations, such as those in controlled
experiments, some causal relationships are supported while others are rejected.
Extending these observations, scientists propose general explanations that will
explain the observations. “We could
observe end-less pieces of data, adding to the content of science, but our
observations would be of limited use without general principles to structure
them” (Myers & Hansen, 2002, p. 10).
The empirical approach (as used in
everyday observation) allows us to learn things about the
world. However, everyday observations
are often made carelessly and unsystematically.
Thus, using everyday observations in an attempt to describe, predict and
explain phenomena is problematic.
Observation
When observing phenomena a scientist likes to exert
a specific level of control. When
utilizing control, scientists investigate the effects of various factors one by
one. A key goal for the scientist is to
gain a clearer picture of those factors that actually produce a
phenomenon. It has been suggested that
systematic control is the key feature of science. Non-scientific approaches to knowledge are
often made unsystematically and with little care. The non-scientific approach does not attempt
to control very many factors that could affect the events they are observing
(don’t hold conditions constant). This
lack of control makes it difficult to determine cause-and-effect relationships
(too many confounds, unintended independent variable).
The factors that the researcher manipulates, in
experimental research, to determine their effects on behavior are called the
independent variables. In its simplest
form the independent variable has two levels.
A variable is manipulated when participants / subjects are assigned to
receive different levels of the variable.
These two levels (or conditions) include the experimental condition; the
condition in which the treatment is present and the control condition; the
condition in which the treatment is absent.
Only with experimental research can we determine cause and effect (or
probability of causal relationship).
The measures that are used to assess the effect of
the independent variables are called dependent variables (Shaughnessy &
Zechmeister, 1990). Proper control
techniques must be used if changes in the dependent
variable are to be interpreted as a result of the effects of the independent
variable. Scientists often divide control technique into three types:
manipulation, holding conditions constant, and balancing. We have already discussed manipulation when
we looked at the two levels of the independent variable. Holding conditions constant other than the
independent variables is a key factor associated with control. This helps eliminate the possibility of
confounds influencing the measured outcome.
Balancing is used to control factors that cannot be
manipulated or held constant (e.g. subjects characteristics). The most common method of balancing is to
assign subjects randomly to the different groups being tested. An example of random
assignment would be putting names on a slip of paper and drawing them from a
hat (flipping coin or number generator may also be used for random
assignment). This does not mean there will
be no differences in the subject’s characteristics, but the differences will
probably be minor, and generally have minimal effect on the results.
Reporting
How can two people witness the same event but see
different things? This often occurs due
to personal biases and subjective impressions.
These characteristics are common traits among non-scientists. Their reports often go beyond what has just
been observed and involve speculation.
In the book Research Methods in Psychology (Shaughnessy &
Zechmeister, 1990) an excellent example is given demonstrating the difference
between scientific and non-scientific reporting. An illustration is provided showing two
people running along the street with one person running in front of the
other. The scientist would report it in
the way it was just described. The
non-scientist may take it a step further and report one person is chasing the
other or they are racing. The
non-scientist has a tendency to speculate more than the scientist. This type of reporting lacks
objectivity.
Scientific reporting
attempts to be objective and unbiased.
One way to lessen the chance of biased reporting is
checking to see if other independent observers report the same findings. Even when using this checkpoint the
possibility of bias is still present.
Following strict guidelines to prevent biased reporting
decreases the chances of it occurring.
Totally unbiased reporting,
rarely, if ever occurs. Scientists are
humans, and humans are susceptible to a wide range of conscious and unconscious
biases.
In part 2 additional characteristics of the
systematic approach to knowledge will be discussed.
To learn more about science, rationality and
statistics read In Evidence We Trust: The Need for Science, Rationality andStatistics
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment