It seems to be impossible for scientists to be both at the same time. But for me, they are. When rationalism and empiricism is united it can be represented as the scientific method. The scientific method emphasizes evidence therefore all hypotheses, theories, ideas, and the likes and such must be tested and observed for it to be proven as true. Engaging in scientific method means you will have to observe.
This step helps you know how you want to go about your research because observations triggers a question that addresses the problem or topic you want to research. The second step is forming a hypothesis. A hypothesis is your prediction for the result of the experiment based on your observations and it must be testable. The third step is testing the hypothesis by conducting an experiment. Conducting an experiment or a test is a very crucial stage of scientific method for the reason that this stage is where you
The second aim is to explain by discovering other phenomena (psychic or physical) that may be related to the psychic fact of interest. For Calkins, these roles do not contradict the view that science is always descriptive and never explanatory, as they still focus on the “how?” rather than the “why?” (Pearson, 1892). Ideally, science should seek to classify explained phenomena, grouping them by internal similarities and by similarities of the phenomena which explain them. The author’s description here provides a very practical representation of a scientific approach to
Falsificationism, though, helped me to understand that induction is good for everyday life, but not for science. I learnt that it is possible to falsify someone’s theory or my theory be falsified, but Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ approaches made me understand that it is better not to abandon a theory even if it is falsified. Research programmes influenced me mostly, since the fundamental hypothesis of the hard core and the supplementary assumptions of the protective belt, can be better applied not only to physics, but also natural sciences. For me science has to be explained in an objective way, so the anarchistic theory of science did not influence me, because it talks about individual’s freedom and subjectivity. Finally, the modern approaches of Bayesianism and New Experimentalism did not satisfy me at all and they did not help me in order to define what science is.
William A. Silverman’s Human Experimentation: A Guided Step into the Unknown, he encourages that we can do human experiments as long as it is a careful experimentation. He mentioned that randomized clinical trials that shows careful experimentation leads to effective therapy and a clearer understanding of clinical anomalies. With that being said, aside from effective therapies, clinical anomalies can be understood better through careful experimentation of randomized clinical studies, clinical anomalies can therefore be prevented (Silverman, 1985). Silverman has mentioned that human experimentation must be careful. He defined ‘being careful’ as being always reminded the codes and the laws that surrounds the field of experimentation using humans
When conducting a research in psychology, researcher should carefully plan and manage the procedure which follow the ethics in order to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks. They have to be alert to the possible of unexpected consequences and predicted outcomes of their research. When dealing with subjects in the research, researcher should protect and respect the subjects’ right and dignity. All humans have the equal right and dignity. The subjects have the right to expect the information they provided to the researcher will be treated confidentiality.
In referring to persons as scientists, Kelly only meant that we are all constantly engaged in the process of understanding ourselves and the world around us. Like scientists in the laboratory, we test this understanding by making predictions about the observable outcomes of events. And like applied scientists and engineers, we use our refined understanding to reshape ourselves or some aspect of the world in which we live. In this way, scientific activity is a constant and essential aspect of human existence. Kelly's description of personality in terms of cognitive processes.
His convincing writing and appealing technique are very beneficial in making this article more persuasive. He uses science as a weapon of convincing his readers. People believe in scientific reasoning and judge everything on the basis of scientific knowledge. That is why he starts his article by taking a very strong position by comparing religions with science and claiming that “religions have misrepresented the origins of man and cosmos”. Analyzing his claim in the light of science, it seems to be true as science do not believe in non-physical things.
History has to be scientific and logical in nature. Otherwise how can anyone know what evidence would prove his or her discovery. For example, the scientific method of observing, questioning, experimenting, etc. according to me facts are only proved when assumptions are made. In forming an assumption, a scientist must observe other experiments, evaluate them and then make a selection to form a category.