Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Distinguishing Good Science From Bad Science

    Uploaded by

    Hannah
    This document discusses how to distinguish good science from bad science. It explains that good science requires proof through experiments that can be repeated, and invites peer review and falsification. When experiments cannot be replicated or data is ignored, the scientific findings should be viewed cautiously. The document also notes that false scientific claims can spread if the general public cannot differentiate quality research methods. Overall, the key aspects of good science are proof through replication of experiments, openness to scrutiny and challenge from other scientists, and unbiased evaluation of all data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Distinguishing Good Science From Bad Science

    Uploaded by

    Hannah
    73 views3 pages
    This document discusses how to distinguish good science from bad science. It explains that good science requires proof through experiments that can be repeated, and invites peer review and falsification. When experiments cannot be replicated or data is ignored, the scientific findings should be viewed cautiously. The document also notes that false scientific claims can spread if the general public cannot differentiate quality research methods. Overall, the key aspects of good science are proof through replication of experiments, openness to scrutiny and challenge from other scientists, and unbiased evaluation of all data.

    Original Title

    Distinguishing good science from bad science

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses how to distinguish good science from bad science. It explains that good science requires proof through experiments that can be repeated, and invites peer review and falsification. When experiments cannot be replicated or data is ignored, the scientific findings should be viewed cautiously. The document also notes that false scientific claims can spread if the general public cannot differentiate quality research methods. Overall, the key aspects of good science are proof through replication of experiments, openness to scrutiny and challenge from other scientists, and unbiased evaluation of all data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    73 views3 pages

    Distinguishing Good Science From Bad Science

    Uploaded by

    Hannah
    This document discusses how to distinguish good science from bad science. It explains that good science requires proof through experiments that can be repeated, and invites peer review and falsification. When experiments cannot be replicated or data is ignored, the scientific findings should be viewed cautiously. The document also notes that false scientific claims can spread if the general public cannot differentiate quality research methods. Overall, the key aspects of good science are proof through replication of experiments, openness to scrutiny and challenge from other scientists, and unbiased evaluation of all data.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Distinguishing good science

    from bad science


    How might we distinguish good science from bad science?
    Under what circumstances should we be suspicious of scientific findings?
    What criteria could we use to distinguish science from pseudo-science?
    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly
    anyone knows anything about science & technology.
    Carl Sagan

    Lots of scientific knowledge you have personalized throughout your


    education is in fact second-hand knowledge. You acquired this knowledge
    mainly through language, either via a textbook or the words of your
    teachers. You arguably trusted your teachers and believed that what they
    told you in science class was true. But under which circumstances should
    we accept second hand scientific knowledge? The motto of Britain's very
    first scientific society (The Royal Society) is "Nullius in Verba", which means
    "Take nobody's word for it".
    One of the key features of the natural sciences is the necessity of being able
    to prove what you claim. Good science does not only require proof. It also
    actively invites peer-review and even falsification. For example, if your
    teacher claims that starch will turn blue when mixed with iodine, you will
    want to test this yourself. Within the natural sciences, you should be able
    to repeat experiments to see if a hypothesis is correct. But what should you
    conclude when an experiment 'does not work'? If this happens in your
    science lesson, you may have made a mistake. Perhaps the conditions were
    not exactly the same as what the experiment had in might, which may have
    led to different results. However, if you are a practicing scientist and your
    experiment shows that a hypothesis from another scientist does not work,
    you may be onto something. Maybe the hypothesis of the other scientist
    was not correct, or you could have discovered particular conditions in
    which the experiment does not work. In that case, knowledge from other
    scientists may need to be refined, built upon or even discarded (when
    proven wrong). Some scientists do not conduct their studies correctly and
    they may dispose of inconvenient data. When scientists are not open to
    peer-review, we should approach their knowledge with caution. There are
    circumstances in which experts get it wrong. This can be because they
    deliberately created erroneous knowledge, to seek fame or financial gain.
    Andrew Wakefield, for example, deliberately tweaked the findings of his
    research to claim that MMR vaccines cause autism and Crohn's disease. He
    published these findings in respectable journals such as The Lancet. The
    scientific community, however, soon found that there were ethical and
    factual problems with his methodology. Incorrect scientific knowledge can
    surface for a while within the scientific community, but over time, these
    ideas are (hopefully) phased out through peer review. Wakefield's claims
    have now been discarded; The Lancet retracted the original article and
    Wakefield is not allowed to practise medicine anymore. Nevertheless, fear
    amongst the wider (not scientific) population led to a decline in
    vaccinations, with disease and mortality as a negative consequence.
    False scientific knowledge can become widely accepted by the larger
    community, as this community is often unable to distinguish good science
    from bad science. Ben Goldacre points out how 'bad science' permeates
    popular culture and belief. Should we perhaps be wary of scientific
    knowledge claims (in media) which rely too much on emotive language
    (often fear)? When it comes to distinguishing good science and bad
    science, it is important to check the funding of research as well as the
    possible profitable nature of its findings.
    Although the notions of testing, falsification and peer review play a crucial
    role in distinguishing good science from less credible scientific knowledge,
    it is important to remember that not all scientific hypotheses can be tested
    in the same way. Sometimes evidence is not available (yet), because we do
    not have the means to observe things that are too small for current
    technology to "see", or perhaps simply too far away. In this sense, we should
    not automatically discard all scientific knowledge that cannot be tested in
    a laboratory. Nevertheless, it is very important to check the sources and
    methodology used to produce knowledge that claims to be scientific.

    Natural Sciences. (n.d.). TOK 2022: THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE WEBSITE FOR THE IBDP.

    Retrieved September 19, 2022, from https://www.tok2022.net/natural-sciences.html


    DISTINGUISHING GOOD
    SCIENCE FROM BAD SCIENCE
    TOK concept Instructions Cognitive Tool

    After reading Distinguishing good


    science from bad science, select one
    TOK concept and one cognitive tool
    associated with this analysis of "good"
    science. Explain these connections.

    TOK CONCEPTS
    certainty, culture, evidence,
    explanation, interpretation,
    justification, objectivity,
    perspective, power,
    responsibility, truth, and values.

    COGNITIVE TOOLS
    reason, emotion, faith,
    memory, imagination,
    intuition, language, sense
    perception.

    You might also like