Sep 30, 2011 - Always Active. Scientific knowledge is built on empirical data, and the details of the data. Plausible to the science writer who is hip to the scientific method, but. To generate and/or support knowledge claims - then even scientists. This suggests a couple more things we might ask credible scientists to.

1. Does The Scientific Method Necessarily Always Produce Reliable And Valid Knowledge

Scientific knowledge may be considered provisional or subjective, according to Kuhn and the instrumentalists, but truth must be defined either coherently or pragmatically, so it may not be objective knowledge. It is also possible that scientific knowledge is not provision, because it has some objective account of reality, leading to a more viable definition of knowledge. Overall, this essay believes that if scientific knowledge is provisional, it can still be knowledge.Kuhn argues that science exists in a paradigm, which makes all theories relative to a paradigm.

• This essay aim to prove that although the scientific method does not necessarily always produces reliable and valid knowledge, it is stills a most reasonable inference to help human understand natural phenomena.
• How do we acquire knowledge in the natural sciences? The scientific ‘method’ 400 years ago, Galileo set up an experiment to test the hypothesis that objects accelerate when they fall.

A paradigm can be viewed as a way of thinking, stemming from fundamental premises that are not questioned. Theories from one paradigm cannot be proven to be better than another purely logically, because of the incommensurability and theory ladenness of observation. For example, when Michael Faraday posits the idea of electromagnetism to Davies, the idea was not accepted due to them operating on different paradigms. Davies believes that electricity is like a fluid that flows through the wire and does not exert any external force, and this is used in a paradigm to prove the rest of his observations. Faraday believes that electricity can exert a force around a wire, which is different from Davies’ fundamental premise that was taken for granted. With different notions of reality, the different paradigms are incommensurable and the scientists would talk past each other, and comparison would be difficult, so a purely logical faculty cannot choose one paradigm over another. Thus, truth can only be relative to a paradigm, according to Kuhn.If this view were held, science can still be considered knowledge because it can still be a justified true belief coherently.

With a paradigm, one’s notion of theories would be justified by the fundamental premises, since they are accounted for and explained by them, and he has good reasons to believe that the theories are true due to their congruence with observations. Hence, the criteria of justification and belief are fulfilled. If truth were to be defined coherently, where a proposition is considered true if and only if it fits in with the rest of one’s beliefs and is not contradicted, then the paradigmatic science would produce propositions that are true, since the theories are internally justified by one’s paradigms. In the case of geocentricity, the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth fits in with their internal web of beliefs and observations that the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Hence, it is arguable that such provisional scientific knowledge can be considered knowledge.However, Bertrand Russell contends with the coherent theory of truth in that the principle of non-contradiction is taken for granted, and that there can be a conflict of coherent webs. A case in point would be the conflict between the geocentric worldview and the heliocentric worldview: one school of thought holds that the Earth revolves around the Sun and another that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Both schools of thought are internally coherent with observations, and are justified beliefs, but they cannot both be considered knowledge, since most people would not regard them to be so. Therefore, if scientific knowledge is provisional and relative to a paradigm, its value as knowledge may be lost. Furthermore, the principle of non-contradiction is taken for granted: this is the case if I claim to know that the Earth definitely revolves around the Sun and that it is impossible that the Sun is revolving around a stationary Earth at the same time.

What appears logically impossible may not be whay is necessarily untrue, according to a sceptic. Therefore, with the coherent theory utilised, provisional scientific knowledge may not be considered knowledge.Another account of science would be that of the instrumentalists, who believe that science is provisional because theories are merely tools to explain physical phenomena and are not true in themselves. In the field of kinematics, the various equations are merely human constructs to explain physical phenomena. For instance, the word ‘power’ is defined as the work done per unit time, but the idea of ‘power’ does not objectively exist in a system, because it can only be observed to produce energy. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that scientific theories are not objectively true of the system, but are merely provisional, helping us to explain phenomena.This can be considered knowledge if the pragmatic theory of truth were utilised.

Scientific theories can be considered justified beliefs since there are experimental observations to show the manifestations of a theory. According to William James, truth is made, and a proposition is true if it is useful in explaining phenomena to us. For example, in the case of the concept of force, since it can account for a lot of physical phenomena like how I feel pain when someone presses against me or that I am able to push things, the concept of force must be true.

With a justified true belief in the propositions according to the instrumentalists, there can be knowledge claims in science.However, most people do not think that truth can be subjective and changeable. Wittgenstein believes that the definition of a word should conform to how it is most typically used in ordinary language. Since people do not consider a pragmatic truth to be knowledge, it follows that pragmatic truths cannot be considered knowledge.

Back to forces, just because it is useful to believe that force exist, that does not mean that forces exist – we could well be deluded. Therefore, without the truth criteria satisfied, provisional scientific claims may not be considered knowledge.Scientific knowledge may not be provisional, according to the logical positivists, who believe that science is defined by the scientific method, and that science works towards an ultimate truth. According to the Vienna Circle, science is a process of observation, hypothesising, experimentation, and evaluation.

Through this method, there is a linear progression in science and humans can get closer to the objective truth of the nature of the universe. For example, Watson’s and Crick’s discovery of the DNA double helix were dependent on Mendel’s genetic theory, and proven by observations and experimentations. With this approach science is objective and testable by different scientists, like how hydrochloric acid will always react with sodium hydroxide to form water and sodium chloride. With such objective truths, scientific knowledge can be argued to be not provisional.When science is not provisional, it can necessarily be considered knowledge.

Science is justified by experimentation and a strong inductive link from observations, like how repeated experiments can show that force is proportional to mass. Science is also correspondently true, because it is considered objective, and the context of justification is favoured. For example, though Kekule suggested the benzene structure through a dream, it was through empirical evidence that he made the conclusions, so the truth is not subjective, but objective. With a correspondently true and justified belief, non-provisional science can be considered knowledge.Nonetheless, strict sceptics can argue against this approach of science due to the problem of induction and the subjectivity of the claims. According to Hume, there is no causation, but only a constant conjunction of events, so the claim that force is proportional to mass just based on many observations does not discredit the possibility that the force is not proportional to mass in the next experiment.

Hence, the logical leap from some instances to all instances in a theory does not give science sufficient justification. Even though the experimentation is considered objective, there is also confirmation bias, where scientists could favour the observations that fit their theory, making the process of science subjective. Therefore, scientific knowledge may be provisional after all.In conclusion, there are good reasons to believe that scientific knowledge is provisional because of the difficulty in ascertaining objective truths. When it is provisional, it is difficult to believe that it can still be knowledge, because it falls short where objective and correspondent truths are required. Nonetheless, if a strict criterion of knowledge is required, there is very little that we can claim to know, and science, a field that has provided so much information about the world, also cannot be considered knowledge.

Thus, for pragmatic reasons, provisional scientific knowledge can still be considered knowledge.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe.The word 'science' is derived from the Latin word scientia, which is knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the. True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis.

Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science.The scientific methodWhen conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, in an experiment related to a (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a.' As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data,' Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. 'But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question.

So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not.' The steps of the scientific method go something like this:.Make an observation or observations.Ask questions about the observations and gather information.Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. 'Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method,' Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. 'The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science.

Does The Scientific Method Necessarily Always Produce Reliable And Valid Knowledge

No reproducibility – no science.' Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:.The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.Research must involve. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.Scientific theories and lawsThe scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven, though a few theories do become scientific laws.

One example would be the laws of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Linda Boland, a neurobiologist and chairperson of the biology department at the University of Richmond, Virginia, told Live Science that this is her favorite scientific law. 'This is one that guides much of my research on cellular electrical activity and it states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. This law continually reminds me of the many forms of energy,' she said.A law just describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it.

'In science, laws are a starting place,' said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. 'From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?' 'Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is 'just a theory' is a layperson's term that has no relationship to science.

To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science. Alina Bradford, Live Science ContributorAlina Bradford is a contributing writer for Live Science. Over the past 16 years, Alina has covered everything from Ebola to androids while writing health, science and tech articles for major publications. She has multiple health, safety and lifesaving certifications from Oklahoma State University. Alina's goal in life is to try as many experiences as possible. To date, she has been a volunteer firefighter, a dispatcher, substitute teacher, artist, janitor, children's book author, pizza maker, event coordinator and much more.