Scribd
Upload
6 views4 pages

LESSON-2-NOTES

Overview and History and Philosophy of Science

Uploaded by

stephen john agtoto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
6 views4 pages

LESSON-2-NOTES

Overview and History and Philosophy of Science

Uploaded by

stephen john agtoto
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Wednesday, 19 June 2024

MODULE 1 - Overview and History and Philosophy


of Science

Lesson 2 - Ways of knowing and doing in science and technology

I. Ways of Knowing

• Epistemological problem
- how perception could give us knowledge or justi ed belief about an external world, about things
outside of ourselves.
- Most of the time, we simply rely on our ways of knowing what we knew without examining
whether what we knew is true or not.
- We rely on our senses, which are fallible, and we must select only a few of the impressions which
our senses gather.

Licklider, R. (1999). How Do We Know What We Know? Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/


288874254_How_Do_We_Know_What_We_Know

1. Our senses can be fooled rather easily.


- We rely heavily on sight, for example, but it is notoriously fallible.

2. However, fallible senses are not our only problem.


- If we de ne "facts" as things perceived by our senses, our brains are so limited that we cannot
retain all the facts which our senses produce.
- We think of our mind as preserving pictures of reality; actually, it keeps only a small set of
selected impressions of reality, rather like a map, and di erent maps will highlight di erent
aspects of the same reality.

• Concepts
- How we select what we will retain.
- The ideas about reality within our brains.
- These concepts are important because they tell us what "facts" to look for and which ones to
ignore.
- dominate our perception of reality so much that we often "see" things that are
- not there.

• The epistemological problem has at least two di erent sorts of implications:


1. It makes it very di cult for us to be con dent that our own perceptions of reality are correct.
2. A more serious problem is persuading other people to accept our view of reality.

1
fi
ffi
fi
fi
ff
ff
ff
II. The Scienti c Method

• Scienti c method
- One of the ways that we can ascertain that what we know is valid and true.

• 4 ways of knowing:
1. empiricism
- when we use our sense organs or observations
2. rationalism
- when we use our logical reasoning.
3. authoritarianism
- involves the use of authority
4. intuition
- inspiration or revelation

• 2 alternative ways of addressing the issue of epistemological problem:


1. Wisdom method
- considers focusing on just a speci c area
- conducting an in-depth study of such an area.
- intensive study of a limited area.
- In the process, the gain knowledge somehow could be ascertained that it is valid and true so
far as the area is being concerned

2
fi
fi
fi
2. Scienti c method
- tries to test general statements against reality to evaluate if they are true.
- in manner that is acceptable by “many di erent people even those who do not share the same
values”
• In view of the epistemological problem discussed by Licklider (1999), this task seems di cult
although it can be addressed in two ways as he suggested:
— the research design must prove the guesses of the researcher/s to be wrong by reality
— the researcher must be able to explain his or her process of testing his or her idea against reality.

• Process of science analysis:

1. Hypothesis
- The rst step is to state the pattern or relationship you wish to test.
- A hypothesis is a general, empirical, comparative, testable statement.

a). General statement


- refers to a group of events (or cases as we often call them), not to a single event.
- A general statement has no proper nouns
b). Empirical statement
- relating to facts rather than to values
- "is" instead of "ought."
c). Comparative statement
- focuses on the similarities and di erences between at least two groups (remember that we are
dealing with general statements, so it will be groups rather than single events).
d). Testable statement

2. Replication
- The second stage of the science method is to compare the hypothesis to a portion of reality in a
way that can be replicated by others if necessary.
- 2 aspects:

a). Operational De nitions


- Concepts must be de ned so clearly that anyone using the same de nitions will select the
same facts as data.
- This clarity is crucial for replication and persuasiveness in science.
- For example, de ning "war" can vary greatly, but researchers like J. David Singer and Melvin
Small use speci c criteria (e.g., con icts with at least 1,000 battle deaths) to ensure consistency
in their data selection.
b). Data Application
- After de ning and selecting data, the analyst must clearly explain how the data tests the
hypothesis.
- This includes detailing how data is applied, assessing di erences, and ensuring that another
person could replicate the analysis and reach the same conclusion.
- Only then should the results be persuasive, according to the science method.

3. Conclusions
- The third step of the science method is to summarize the results of your analysis and draw
conclusions.
- Again, the basis for drawing the conclusions must be explicitly stated so that the reader
understands how they were reached.

3
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
ff
fl
ff
ff
fi
ffi
III. Facts vs. Opinions

Science Process and the Generation of Scienti c Knowledge. Available from http://tvup.ph/?p=2506

• Scienti c knowledge is characterized by:


1. Objective (unbiased)
2. Credible
3. Reliable

• Requirements of scienti c method:


1. Logical and reasonable explanations
2. Probable predictions of events

4
fi
fi
fi

You might also like