Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rene descartes scientific methods
Rene descartes scientific methods
Rene descartes scientific methods
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rene descartes scientific methods
The article Best Idea: Eyes Wide Open by Richard Powers discusses different aspects of the scientific method. It begins by talking about a man named Abu Ali al-Hasan Ibn al-Haytham who made discoveries regarding vision. He did this by simply performing observations and having people stare directly at the sun. Ibn al-Haytham changed the way science was viewed by telling people to simply look in order to gain information. Later, William of Ockham came up with the idea that “when you have multiple ways to explain something, go with the one that has the least amount of assumptions” (Powers, 1999, p. 4). My interpretation of this is that you shouldn’t make something harder than it needs to be. Do not assume, but rather work with the observations and experiments that you have performed. This idea eventually became known as Ockham’s Razor. Rene Descartes went in a different direction and believed that all science can be demonstrated by a series of deductions and self-evident facts, instead of something that is run through observation and experimentation. …show more content…
Testing can be performed in multiple ways. One way is through a placebo-controlled study. There is multiple groups within this study. One group is called a control group in which people are not actually given the real item that is being tested. Instead they are given something that will have no real effect in order to have something to base the real item on. Another type of testing is the double blind experiment. “This type of experiment occurs when information about the test is kept from the subject and the tester. All of this is done in an attempt to keep bias out of the trial” (Fish,
Experimental research is the one type of research that allows psychologists to make causal statements. It is where the researcher changes one or more variables that may have an effect on some other variables (King, 2016). The hypothesis is a specific expectation about what is going to happen in the experiment (King, 2016). In the research, the hypothesis was that women would perceive fat talk to be more socially acceptable than men (Katrevich et al., 2014). The other elements of experimental method are dependent and independent variables. The independent variable (IV) is the cause of the results, and it is changed by the experimenter to find the effects, but the dependent vari...
Myers (2002) defines the double-blind procedure as a procedure where both the experimenter and subject are unaware about which subjects have received the actual treatment or the placebo. The subjects are randomly assigned to two different groups, that is the experimental and the control group. The former is given the actual treatment, while the latter receives a placebo which serves as an inauthentic substitute of a treatment that has no substantial chemical distinguishing qualities or active agent (Feldman, 1999). However, both groups do not know if they are receiving the actual treatment or not.
To make sure it is a fair test; the procedure is repeated a couple of
Throughout the movie The Awakening, Robin Williams demonstrates his knowledge of the scientific method. The scientific method is a procedure of steps that is used to prove problems. In the movie it is used to show that patients suffering from an un-named disorder do have a slight opportunity to return to their normal state of being. The scientific method is a list of steps to prove something and make into a law or theory based on your final product and findings.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Yet, the use of human test subjects, usually acquired
The study is usually described as an experiment with the independent variable being, the condition the participants are ...
Legitimacy and justifying placebo use in clinical trials. Employing placebo in clinical trials can improve the quality of the study results. Firstly, a placebo group employment enables to evaluate efficacy of blind, randomised subject control medical treatment avoiding assessment bias. Secondly, it can be reduce the number of patients to conduct since outcomes in different states, these are treatment group and placebo group can be compared which makes the difference clearer whether the results are beneficial or harmful. Thirdly, placebo can be used in addition to normal treatment of patients, where results will show genuine results as beneficial or harmful conditional change....
...ample artificiality of laboratory environment and ethical considerations, because of which a lot of interesting ideas of conducting an experiment cannot be obtained. Sometimes is also a problem with fallacies like hasty generalization. Can we therefore with reason reliably extrapolate the knowledge obtained in the human sciences into the future?
In order for an experiment to be considered a true experimental design, the design must fit specific criteria. The researcher must have a hypothesis for a cause and effect relationship between variables, the treatment group, the control group, random selection for the treatment group, and random assignment for the control group. In a simple experiment, the researcher forms two groups that are similar or equivalent, through probability, to each other in every way possible appropriate to the concept of experiment. The treatment group receives the procedure for the experiment and the control group does not. Therefore, the only difference between the groups will be that one group receives the treatment for the experiment and one group does note. After the experiment is conducted the researcher analysis the results in both groups.
Ever wonder how the world would be today only if our great researchers implemented a different attitude towards their experiments? It is possible that the results would remain same. However, some argue that the consequences may be altered. Nonetheless, this does not make the earlier learned knowledge valued less or false, just supplementary. Abraham Maslow’s theory challenges nearly all ways of knowing, suggesting that if we limit our thinking, the outcomes remain homogenous, therefore, limiting the amount of knowledge we acquire. Dilemmas are mentioned in order to repudiate from the opinions that are profoundly accepted in the society. If Newton had eaten that apple, instead of using it as a tool to apply the theory of attraction, he may not have exposed gravity. Because he had more tools than a mere hammer and he was sagacious enough to expand his philosophy beyond hunger, he made such an innovation. It is widely claimed that inventions are accidental. In fact, all the chemical elements in the famous periodic table are a result of different tactics towards scientist’s research. As ToK teaches us that there is no possible end to a situation for it is influenced by the perceptive skills of the arguers. There is never a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or the ‘ultimate answer’ in the conflict, but the eminence of rationalization is what poises the deliberation. This suggestion explains that there is always that one more way to approach the conclusion. Thus, pursuit of knowledge habitually requires dissimilar ways of knowing for it lengthens the verdict.
Voltaire said “the perfect is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire 74). In striving for a perfect definition and application of scientific analysis, Karl Popper established an impractical and ineffective approach to science. In this paper, I will discuss the premises and principles behind Popper’s scientific method of critical rationalism. I will then explain where I believe his method succeeds, where it fails, and why I consider his method both impractical and ineffective. I will do so by first explaining his thoughts on science versus the status quo, then I will take the position that his approach is flawed and impractical, and lastly conclude with a commentary on why truth has to be flexible. My thesis is that in defining highly rigid parameters
The steps that are included in most pre-college textbooks are defining the problem, gathering background information, forming a hypothesis, making observations, testing the hypothesis, drawing conclusions, and communicating the results, but this method is not used. One reason for this myth is the way results are published in research journals because it makes people believe that scientists follow a certain research plan. Philosophers have shown that no research procedure is applied by all scientists. Usually scientists use imagination, knowledge, perseverance, and other methods used by problem solvers. This myth teaches that science is not different from other challenges that humans face. This myth has a chance to be corrected because many newer textbooks are taking the method out of the discussions of
The analogy of Aristotle and Galileo reveal that experiments and research might not always lead to the conclusion of the based hypothesis but one must follow the evidence, in a way, to determine whether or not the based assumption, in this case, is true.
The time period surrounding the 17th century was the beginning of an era of great scientific advancement in Europe that was known as the Scientific Revolution. It was during this phase that the use of reason and new advances in science resulted in paradigm shifts. Paradigm shifts are shifts in basic assumptions (paradigms) resulting from the discovery of new information that is no longer compatible with existing paradigms, forcing people to shift their mind frame to adapt to the new assumption ("Thomas S. Kuhn"). In this period, many scientists formulated new theories by developing procedures to test new ideas; one of these procedures was the Ba-conian Method. The creator of the Baconian method, Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626), sought to reform and improve the philosophy of science, and thought that logic should have three goals: to correct habits of mind and intellectual mistakes, to supplement correct intellectual habits and compensate for incorrect ones, and to be constructive in the organization of logic gained (Da-vid). In his attempts to reform science and fulfill these goals, Bacon created a paradigm shift from the use of deductive investigation methods, or basing conclusions on a general law, to the inductive Baconian method that based conclusions on factual evidence from observation or experimentation (Smith). Bacon created this shift firstly by pointing out the flaws in other sys-tems of investigation by strongly criticizing several other philosophical approaches to science. Secondly, Bacon attempted to root out corruption or confusion that he felt was caused by other philosophies by encouraging people to acknowledge and compensate for them. Finally, Bacon created a method to organize and interpret data that would help scien...