If the results did align with the hypothesis, only then will it be considered as a verified data. If it did not, another hypothesis will be formed then experimented. The cycle goes on until the hypothesis aligns with the results. Rationalism kicks in the first step of the scientific method all the way to the third which is the forming of a hypothesis. Empiricism might also start with observation but it is applied strongly during experiments because of the experience you get from
The two main paradigms that are used for describing these are using the objective, scientific-based positivist approach and the subjective, phenomological-based interpretivist approach. Since the positivist approach is grounded on a foundation of empirical testing, it looks largely at hypotheses and determines cause and effect relationships based on largely deductive logic as well as the validity and reliability of the research studies conducted. The interpretivist paradigm uses multiple perspectives of reality since this is based on a contextual interpretation of the issues being examined, where reality is a fluid construct and depends on who is being observed under a particular set of
Defining the boundaries of where these sciences take authority is definitely a limitation. Regarding this, bias is another limitation that this model has to deal with. In regards to this, bias can be implemented when someone favors one of the two sciences over the other in a way that creates an unbalance. The Allies model does not serve either science, but rather, it serves God and God alone. In that, God has created both sciences and hold them in an equal stance.
These statements contradict with each other, and fallibility states that (1) is false since it contradicts with the other statements. This leads into skepticism, as there is no absolute way to know if one has a hand. Cohen argues that this is a paradox, as one can change the knowledge of knowing that I have a hand, and the same problem will arise. With contextualism, the inconsistencies disappear by the different interpretations of "to know" a person can have. If the standard for knowledge is high, then (1) is incorrect and the fallibility arguments is correct.
In order to perceive logic through the process of a rationalist it has to be fallacy proof and should be free from critical thinking. Biasness and emotions have no place in rationalism. People confuse free thinking and rationalism but the literal meaning does not connect them together. Free thinking is a non restrictive definition on the other hand rationalism is a restrictive
A Critical Analysis and Application of the Functionalist Theory The functionalist perspective is based largely on the works of Herbert Spencer, Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, and Robert Merton. The idea of the perspective is quite simple. It is that, as the human body system works, the institutions in the society works interdependently for the proper functioning of the whole; the whole being the entire society. A number of key concepts underpin Functionalism. The primary concepts within Functionalism are collective conscience, value consensus, social order, education, family, crime and deviance and the media.
Around the same time, a new school known as functionalism began to develop. Rather than focus on the structure of mental experience, functionalists look at the mind’s adaptive functions. Although the contrast between these two schools of thought is less relevant
Methodological congruence ensures that the researcher took the appropriate measures to accurately record and represent the data, both procedurally and ethically. It follows the data itself to ensure that the readers examining the data will reach the same or similar conclusions as the research team. Analytical preciseness deals with the process of translating data. It must go through several processes of decision and interpretation, and analytical precision evaluates logical progression of the data transformation. Theoretical correctness is a meta-evaluation of the schema of the study.
Our research methods are successful in providing validity, but only to the extent that the researcher utilizes them to the best capacity; validity is increased when careful consideration is given to the particular method used. Critics of external validity must also question how important it is to the study at hand, and whether the experiment is looking to generalize across situations or to further the knowledge of a given theory. It is not so much that our methods are bad, as it is that they aren’t self-correcting. It is the job of the researcher to determine which method is the best match for their study in order to minimize error and maximize validity by controlling for threats within that method. Depending on the method of research, a loss in one form of validity might be worth the trade-off for higher validity in another area more meaningful to the current research.
With this, scientists could save a lot and even move to perfection with necessary going through much protocol. What I found discouraging is the fact that this accept proposition as true simply because it agree with other true propositions. I think digging more to better understand the facts before agreeing will helps in strengthening the