New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[28][29] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[30] government agencies, and companies.[31][32] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.
essay explaining how scientists gain new knowledge
During the nineteenth century, many distinguishing characteristics of contemporary modern science began to take shape. These included the transformation of the life and physical sciences, frequent use of precision instruments, emergence of terms such as "biologist", "physicist", "scientist", increased professionalization of those studying nature, scientists gained cultural authority over many dimensions of society, industrialization of numerous countries, thriving of popular science writings and emergence of science journals.[103] During the late 19th century, psychology emerged as a separate discipline from philosophy when Wilhelm Wundt founded the first laboratory for psychological research in 1879.[104]
Computational science applies computing power to simulate real-world situations, enabling a better understanding of scientific problems than formal mathematics alone can achieve. The use of machine learning and artificial intelligence is becoming a central feature of computational contributions to science for example in agent-based computational economics, random forests, topic modeling and various forms of prediction. However, machines alone rarely advance knowledge as they require human guidance and capacity to reason; and they can introduce bias against certain social groups or sometimes underperform against humans.[160][161]
While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another.[174][175] Eliminating the bias can be achieved by transparency, careful experimental design, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results and conclusions.[176][177] After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.[178] Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing the effects of subjective and confirmation bias.[179] Intersubjective verifiability, the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.[180]
Scientists are individuals who conduct scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.[205][206] In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting and upon completion, attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy or PhD.[207] Many scientists pursue careers in various sectors of the economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations.[208][209][210]
Scientists exhibit a strong curiosity about reality and a desire to apply scientific knowledge for the benefit of health, nations, the environment, or industries. Other motivations include recognition by their peers and prestige. In modern times, many scientists have advanced degrees[211] in an area of science and pursue careers in various sectors of the economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit environments.[212][213]
Attitudes towards science are often determined by political opinions and goals. Government, business and advocacy groups have been known to use legal and economic pressure to influence scientific researchers. Many factors can act as facets of the politicization of science such as anti-intellectualism, perceived threats to religious beliefs, and fear for business interests.[253] Politicization of science is usually accomplished when scientific information is presented in a way that emphasizes the uncertainty associated with the scientific evidence.[254] Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence.[255] Examples of issues that have involved the politicization of science include the global warming controversy, health effects of pesticides, and health effects of tobacco.[255][256]
Knowledge is personal. Because constructivism is based on your own experiences and beliefs, knowledge becomes a personal affair. Each person will have their own prior knowledge and experiences to bring to the table. So the way and things people learn and gain from education will all be very different.
NIMH supports a wide range of research, including clinical trials that look at new ways to prevent, detect, or treat diseases and conditions, including eating disorders. Although individuals may benefit from being part of a clinical trial, participants should be aware that the primary purpose of a clinical trial is to gain new scientific knowledge so that others may be better helped in the future.
Later stances include physicist Lee Smolin's 2013 essay "There Is No Scientific Method",[26] in which he espouses two ethical principles,[e] and historian of science Daniel Thurs's chapter in the 2015 book Newton's Apple and Other Myths about Science, which concluded that the scientific method is a myth or, at best, an idealization.[27] As myths are beliefs,[28] they are subject to the narrative fallacy as Taleb points out.[29] Philosophers Robert Nola and Howard Sankey, in their 2007 book Theories of Scientific Method, said that debates over scientific method continue, and argued that Feyerabend, despite the title of Against Method, accepted certain rules of method and attempted to justify those rules with a meta methodology.[30] Staddon (2017) argues it is a mistake to try following rules in the absence of an algorithmic scientific method; in that case, "science is best understood through examples".[f] But algorithmic methods, such as disproof of existing theory by experiment have been used since Alhacen (1027) Book of Optics,[b] and Galileo (1638) Two New Sciences,[32] and The Assayer[33] still stand as scientific method. They contradict Feyerabend's stance. [C][D]
The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, known as the science wars, is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between the postmodernist and realist camps. Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse (note that this term has special meaning in this context) and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth.[140]
Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolutetruth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, mostscientific knowledge is durable. The modification of ideas,rather than their outright rejection, is the norm in science, aspowerful constructs tend to survive and grow more precise and tobecome widely accepted. For example, in formulating the theory ofrelativity, Albert Einstein did not discard the Newtonian laws ofmotion but rather showed them to be only an approximation oflimited application within a more general concept. (The NationalAeronautics and Space Administration uses Newtonian mechanics,for instance, in calculating satellite trajectories.) Moreover,the growing ability of scientists to make accurate predictionsabout natural phenomena provides convincing evidence that wereally are gaining in our understanding of how the world works.Continuity and stability are as characteristic of science aschange is, and confidence is as prevalent as tentativeness.
Scientific inquiry is not easily described apart from thecontext of particular investigations. There simply is no fixedset of steps that scientists always follow, no one path thatleads them unerringly to scientific knowledge. There are,however, certain features of science that give it a distinctivecharacter as a mode of inquiry. Although those features areespecially characteristic of the work of professional scientists,everyone can exercise them in thinking scientifically about manymatters of interest in everyday life.
Bias attributable to the investigator, the sample, the method,or the instrument may not be completely avoidable in everyinstance, but scientists want to know the possible sources ofbias and how bias is likely to influence evidence. Scientistswant, and are expected, to be as alert to possible bias in theirown work as in that of other scientists, although suchobjectivity is not always achieved. One safeguard againstundetected bias in an area of study is to have many differentinvestigators or groups of investigators working in it.
It is appropriate in science, as elsewhere, to turn toknowledgeable sources of information and opinion, usually peoplewho specialize in relevant disciplines. But esteemed authoritieshave been wrong many times in the history of science. In the longrun, no scientist, however famous or highly placed, is empoweredto decide for other scientists what is true, for none arebelieved by other scientists to have special access to the truth.There are no preestablished conclusions that scientists mustreach on the basis of their investigations.
In the short run, new ideas that do not mesh well withmainstream ideas may encounter vigorous criticism, and scientistsinvestigating such ideas may have difficulty obtaining supportfor their research. Indeed, challenges to new ideas are thelegitimate business of science in building valid knowledge. Eventhe most prestigious scientists have occasionally refused toaccept new theories despite there being enough accumulatedevidence to convince others. In the long run, however, theoriesare judged by their results: When someone comes up with a new orimproved version that explains more phenomena or answers moreimportant questions than the previous version, the new oneeventually takes its place. 2ff7e9595c
Comments