Empirical evidence

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/hypothes.php
http://www.studylecturenotes.com/social-researchmethodology/importance-of-hypothesis

mpirical evidence is information acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is

recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring
the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of
empirical data comes into play. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence.
Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research
methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way
that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.
The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these
experiments result in quantitative data in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not
the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory.

Types of empirical research

"Empirical evidence includes measurements or data collected through direct observation or
experimentation," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, in Marlboro,
Vermont. There are two research methods used to gather empirical measurements and data:
qualitative and quantitative.
Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human
behavior, according to Oklahoma State University. It involves data that can be found using the
human senses. This type of research is often done in the beginning of an experiment.
Quantitative research involves methods that are used to collect numerical data and analyze it
using statistical methods, according to the IT University of Copenhagen. Quantitative numerical
data can be any data that uses measurements, including mass, size or volume, according

to Midwestern State University, in Wichita Falls, Texas. This type of research is often used at the
end of an experiment to refine and test the previous research.

Identifying empirical evidence

Identifying empirical evidence in another researcher's experiments can sometimes be difficult.
According to the Pennsylvania State University Libraries, there are some things one can look for
when determining if evidence is empirical:

Can the experiment be recreated and tested?

Does the experiment have a statement about the methodology, tools and controls used?

Is there a definition of the group or phenomena being studied?

Bias
The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation,
experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends
on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion
possible.
However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that
scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences, according to the Center for the
Study of Language and Information.
Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple
scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who
unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters, which
could skew the results.
The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific method, as science can only
be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect
against bad science, according to the University of California.

Empirical law vs. scientific law

Empirical laws and scientific laws are often the same thing. "Laws are descriptions often
mathematical descriptions of natural phenomenon," Peter Coppinger, associate professor of
biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, told Live
Science. Empirical laws are scientific laws that can be proven or disproved using observations or
experiments, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. So, as long as a scientific law can be
tested using experiments or observations, it is considered an empirical law.

Empirical research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empirical research is research using empirical evidence. It is a way of gaining knowledge by

means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empiricism values such research more
than other kinds. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can
be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of
it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly
defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data). Research design varies
by field and by the question being investigated. Many researchers combine qualitative and
quantitative forms of analysis to better answer questions which cannot be studied in laboratory
settings, particularly in the social sciences and in education.
In some fields, quantitative research may begin with a research question (e.g., "Does listening to
vocal music during the learning of a word list have an effect on later memory for these words?")
which is tested through experimentation. Usually, a researcher has a certain theory regarding the
topic under investigation. Based on this theory some statements, or hypotheses, will be proposed
(e.g., "Listening to vocal music has a negative effect on learning a word list."). From these
hypotheses predictions about specific events are derived (e.g., "People who study a word list
while listening to vocal music will remember fewer words on a later memory test than people
who study a word list in silence."). These predictions can then be tested with a suitable
experiment. Depending on the outcomes of the experiment, the theory on which the hypotheses
and predictions were based will be supported or not,[1] or may need to be modified and then
subjected to further testing.
Contents

1 Terminology

2 Usage
o

2.1 Scientific research

3 Empirical cycle

4 See also

5 References

6 External links

Terminology

The term empirical was originally used to refer to certain ancient Greek practitioners of medicine
who rejected adherence to the dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring instead to rely on the
observation of phenomena as perceived in experience. Later empiricism referred to a theory of
knowledge in philosophy which adheres to the principle that knowledge arises from experience
and evidence gathered specifically using the senses. In scientific use the term empirical refers to
the gathering of data using only evidence that is observable by the senses or in some cases using
calibrated scientific instruments. What early philosophers described as empiricist and empirical
research have in common is the dependence on observable data to formulate and test theories and
come to conclusions.
Usage

The researcher attempts to describe accurately the interaction between the instrument (or the
human senses) and the entity being observed. If instrumentation is involved, the researcher is
expected to calibrate his/her instrument by applying it to known standard objects and
documenting the results before applying it to unknown objects. In other words, it describes the
research that has not taken place before and their results.
In practice, the accumulation of evidence for or against any particular theory involves planned
research designs for the collection of empirical data, and academic rigor plays a large part of
judging the merits of research design. Several typologies for such designs have been suggested,
one of the most popular of which comes from Campbell and Stanley.[2] They are responsible for
popularizing the widely cited distinction among pre-experimental, experimental, and quasiexperimental designs and are staunch advocates of the central role of randomized experiments in
educational research.
Scientific research

Accurate analysis of data using standardized statistical methods in scientific studies is critical to
determining the validity of empirical research. Statistical formulas such as regression,
uncertainty coefficient, t-test, chi square, and various types of ANOVA (analyses of variance) are
fundamental to forming logical, valid conclusions. If empirical data reach significance under the
appropriate statistical formula, the research hypothesis is supported. If not, the null hypothesis is
supported (or, more accurately, not rejected), meaning no effect of the independent variable(s)
was observed on the dependent variable(s).
It is important to understand that the outcome of empirical research using statistical hypothesis
testing is never proof. It can only support a hypothesis, reject it, or do neither. These methods
yield only probabilities.
Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to
objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer
will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as

measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, nonempirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example,
observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report
that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of
empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience or time.
The varying perception of empiricism and rationalism shows concern with the limit to which
there is dependency on experience of sense as an effort of gaining knowledge. According to
rationalism, there are a number of different ways in which sense experience is gained
independently for the knowledge and concepts. According to empiricism, sense experience is
considered as the main source of every piece of knowledge and the concepts. In reference with a
specific piece of knowledge, this paper will focus on differentiating between rationalism and
empiricism or rational views and empirical views. In general, rationalists are known for the
development of their own views following two different way. First, the key argument can be
placed that there are cases in which the content of knowledge or concepts end up outstripping the
information. This outstripped information is provided by the sense experience (Hjrland, 2010,
2). Second, there is construction of accounts as to how reasoning helps in the provision of
addition knowledge about a specific or broader scope. Empiricists are known to be presenting
complementary senses related to thought. First there is development of accounts of how there is
provision of information by experience that is cited by rationalists. This is insofar for having it in
the initial place. At times, empiricists tend to be opting skepticism as an option of rationalism. If
experience is not helpful in the provision of knowledge or concept cited by rationalists, then they
do not exist (Pearce, 2010, 35). Second, empiricists hold the tendency of attacking the accounts
of rationalists while considering reasoning to be an important source of knowledge or concepts.
The overall disagreement between empiricists and rationalists show primary concerns in how
there is gaining of knowledge with respect to the sources of knowledge and concept. In some of
the cases, disagreement at the point of gaining knowledge results in the provision of conflicting
responses to other aspects as well. There might be a disagreement in the overall feature of
warrant, while limiting the knowledge and thought. Empiricists are known for sharing the view
that there is no existence of innate knowledge and rather that is derivation of knowledge out of
experience. These experiences are either reasoned using the mind or sensed through the five
senses human possess (Bernard, 2011, 5). On the other hand, rationalists are known to be sharing
the view that there is existence of innate knowledge and this is different for the objects of innate
knowledge being chosen. In order to follow rationalism, there must be adoption of one of the
three claims related to the theory that are Deduction or Intuition, Innate Knowledge, and Innate
Concept. The more there is removal of concept from mental operations and experience, there can
be performance over experience with increased plausibility in being innate. Further ahead,
empiricism in context with a specific subject provides a rejection of corresponding version
related to innate knowledge and deduction or intuition (Weiskopf, 2008, 16). Insofar as there is
acknowledgement of concepts and knowledge within the area of subject, the knowledge has
major dependence on experience through human senses.

Empirical cycle

Empirical cycle according to A.D. de Groot

A.D. de Groot's empirical cycle:[3]

1. Observation: The observation of a phenomenon and inquiry concerning its
causes.
2. Induction: The formulation of hypotheses - generalized explanations for the
phenomenon.
3. Deduction: The formulation of experiments that will test the hypotheses (i.e.
confirm them if true, refute them if false).
4. Testing: The procedures by which the hypotheses are tested and data are
collected.
5. Evaluation: The interpretation of the data and the formulation of a theory - an
abductive argument that presents the results of the experiment as the most
reasonable explanation for the phenomenon.
See also
Case study

Hypotheses
An hypothesis is a specific statement of prediction. It describes in concrete (rather than
theoretical) terms what you expect will happen in your study. Not all studies have hypotheses.
Sometimes a study is designed to be exploratory (see inductive research). There is no formal
hypothesis, and perhaps the purpose of the study is to explore some area more thoroughly in
order to develop some specific hypothesis or prediction that can be tested in future research. A
single study may have one or many hypotheses.

Actually, whenever I talk about an hypothesis, I am really thinking simultaneously about two
hypotheses. Let's say that you predict that there will be a relationship between two variables in
your study. The way we would formally set up the hypothesis test is to formulate two hypothesis
statements, one that describes your prediction and one that describes all the other possible
outcomes with respect to the hypothesized relationship. Your prediction is that variable A and
variable B will be related (you don't care whether it's a positive or negative relationship). Then
the only other possible outcome would be that variable A and variable B are not related. Usually,
we call the hypothesis that you support (your prediction) the alternative hypothesis, and we call
the hypothesis that describes the remaining possible outcomes the null hypothesis. Sometimes
we use a notation like HA or H1 to represent the alternative hypothesis or your prediction, and HO
or H0 to represent the null case. You have to be careful here, though. In some studies, your
prediction might very well be that there will be no difference or change. In this case, you are
essentially trying to find support for the null hypothesis and you are opposed to the alternative.
If your prediction specifies a direction, and the null therefore is the no difference prediction and
the prediction of the opposite direction, we call this a one-tailed hypothesis. For instance, let's
imagine that you are investigating the effects of a new employee training program and that you
believe one of the outcomes will be that there will be less employee absenteeism. Your two
hypotheses might be stated something like this:
The null hypothesis for this study is:
HO: As a result of the XYZ company employee training program, there will either be no
significant difference in employee absenteeism or there will be a significant increase.
which is tested against the alternative hypothesis:
HA: As a result of the XYZ company employee training program, there will be a significant
decrease in employee absenteeism.
In the figure on the left, we see this situation illustrated graphically. The alternative hypothesis -your prediction that the program will decrease absenteeism -- is shown there. The null must
account for the other two possible conditions: no difference, or an increase in absenteeism. The
figure shows a hypothetical distribution of absenteeism differences. We can see that the term
"one-tailed" refers to the tail of the distribution on the outcome variable.

When your prediction does not specify a

direction, we say you have a two-tailed
hypothesis. For instance, let's assume you are
studying a new drug treatment for depression. The
drug has gone through some initial animal trials,
but has not yet been tested on humans. You
believe (based on theory and the previous
research) that the drug will have an effect, but you
are not confident enough to hypothesize a
direction and say the drug will reduce depression (after all, you've seen more than enough
promising drug treatments come along that eventually were shown to have severe side effects
that actually worsened symptoms). In this case, you might state the two hypotheses like this:
The null hypothesis for this study is:
HO: As a result of 300mg./day of the ABC drug, there will be no significant difference in
depression.
which is tested against the alternative hypothesis:
HA: As a result of 300mg./day of the ABC drug, there will be a significant difference in
depression.
The figure on the right illustrates this two-tailed prediction for this case. Again, notice that the
term "two-tailed" refers to the tails of the
distribution for your outcome variable.
The important thing to remember about stating
hypotheses is that you formulate your prediction
(directional or not), and then you formulate a
second hypothesis that is mutually exclusive of
the first and incorporates all possible alternative
outcomes for that case. When your study analysis
is completed, the idea is that you will have to choose between the two hypotheses. If your
prediction was correct, then you would (usually) reject the null hypothesis and accept the
alternative. If your original prediction was not supported in the data, then you will accept the null
hypothesis and reject the alternative. The logic of hypothesis testing is based on these two basic
principles:

the formulation of two mutually exclusive hypothesis statements that,

together, exhaust all possible outcomes

the testing of these so that one is necessarily accepted and the other
rejected

OK, I know it's a convoluted, awkward and formalistic way to ask research questions. But it
encompasses a long tradition in statistics called the hypothetical-deductive model, and
sometimes we just have to do things because they're traditions. And anyway, if all of this
hypothesis testing was easy enough so anybody could understand it, how do you think
statisticians would stay employed?

Deduction & Induction

Ukranian Translation

In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive
approaches.
Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is
informally called a "top-down" approach. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our
topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We
narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This
ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data -- a confirmation (or not)
of our original theories.
Inductive reasoning works the
other way, moving from specific
observations to broader
generalizations and theories.
Informally, we sometimes call this
a "bottom up" approach (please
note that it's "bottom up" and not
"bottoms up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he's trying to close
for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with specific observations and measures, begin
to detect patterns and regularities, formulate some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and
finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.

These two methods of reasoning

have a very different "feel" to
them when you're conducting
research. Inductive reasoning, by
its very nature, is more openended and exploratory, especially
at the beginning. Deductive
reasoning is more narrow in nature
and is concerned with testing or
confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may look like it's purely deductive (e.g.,
an experiment designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some outcome),
most social research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in
the project. In fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we could assemble the two graphs
above into a single circular one that continually cycles from theories down to observations and
back up again to theories. Even in the most constrained experiment, the researchers may observe
patterns in the data that lead them to develop new theories.