Internal and External Validity Both internal and external validity are incredibly significant factors in a research study. If a research study is not valid there is no reason to rely on the information gathered. Internal validity is the extent that a researcher can trust the results of their research based on the relationship of the independent and dependent variable rather than external factors. Whereas, external validity refers to how much the results of a research study can be generalized. There are many different ways both types of validities can affect research studies.
Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.  We have to keep in mind that science helps us describe how the world is, but it cannot make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad and individual people must make moral judgments.
And yet, the science and reason that brought us this invention are not enough to force humanity to accept it in all facets of life. Something potentially responsible for this phenomenon is the Backfire Effect. David McRaney describes the Backfire Effect with great accuracy in his article “The Backfire Effect”: “coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead” (1). This unbreakable resolve for maintaining beliefs in contradiction to logic prevents us from seeing truth effectively.
Unlike many of the other authors examined thus far, Gert is much subtler in his argumentative approach by utilizing carful phraseology and ambiguity rather than decisive declarations. In the introduction of his article, Gert acknowledges that he is not an expert in genetics, but simply a philosopher setting out to resolve the controversy surrounding alteration of the human genome. After thoroughly describing his definition of morality, Gert claims, “The moral force of the objection [towards] genetic engineering… is that we do not know that there are no risks. A proper humility, that is, recognition that human knowledge is limited and that all human beings are fallible, is required for reliable moral behavior” (Gert 47). Aside from the authority that results from being published in a peer-reviewed journal, Gert writes in a rather serious and academic tone to prevent the reader from taking his words too lightly.
The natural law tries to look at the conflicts in the world using modern scientific tools that are ill-attuned to measure and validate concepts appropriately. For instance, the highly acclaimed Newtonian laws explicate natural phenomena, yet fail miserably to succinctly show its association with social values. Primarily, the laws of cause and effect take center stage in the Newtonian picture without the advice of social order being inculcated into the system. Argument Against Ethical
He also agreed with the two characteristics of Vienna Circle; first, the empiricist and positivist, where knowledge can only be obtained from experience and secondly that scientific conception can be obtained by logical analysis. Thus, Popper believed that scientist should be critical and they should be able to test their views with empirical evidence and rational discussion. However, he rejected positivism especially logical positivism and questioned the principles of ‘inductivism’ and ‘verificationism’. Popper rejected classical inductivist views on the scientific method and was in favor of empirical falsification which he is well known for. Furthermore, as David Hume had already showed that experience cannot be verified, Popper believes that only falsification can be used for empirical process of
Basically, Grant puts it that in face of problems leaders will make a decision based on the challenge they are facing. He further asserts that situations are tame, wicked or critical and depending on the situation the social constructivist approach is enhanced. The main reason behind this is that the three situations can be linked to different forms of resource which are calculative, ideological and coercive (Grant 2005). Unlike many other researchers Grant handles a unique area where he analysis language and leadership. His, concept takes into consideration that at times the nature of certain situations determines how problems are solved.
Idealists see the role of power as an undesirable factor to be eliminated. Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.
All these criticisms are supported by the criteria on Popper’s (1971) demarcation, as it concerns the logical structure of theories (Hansson, 2008). He claims that a theory may only be deemed to be scientific if it can be falsified (Popper, 1971; Hansson, 2008). The philosopher, Karl Popper (1971), is famously known for his theory of falsification theory and according to him, many applied sciences, especially social science, are not scientific due to their lack of potential for falsification. In other words, a theory must consist of an inherent testability so as to be proven false and thus conceivably refuted. Not only that, it must be able to make predictions that can be accessed through numerous testings (Popper, 2002; Hansson, 2008).
We do not act or behave in a way where we make them feel like they are different from us because doing so seems to be morally wrong. We all have the ability to dehumanize but we do not because it is morally wrong. David Livingstone Smith, a professor of philosophy at the University of New England, supports this claim. Smith wrote a book called Less Than Human in which he discusses the concept of dehumanization in depth. Alan Page Fiske, a professor of anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles is known for studying the nature of human relationships and cross-culture variations between them.