A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals.  This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.
Explain the meaning of scientific method. Answer/ Hypothetic-deductive method: mixing between deductive and inductive methods to and of process of: 1- Explanation of a problem. 2- Creating a hypothesis from conclusion(observation). 3- Implications their chart by created by deduction. 4- Testing theoretical or practical of the hypotheses.
Surely, there are no demonstrable starting points either in pure reason or in formless sense experience (Groothuis, 2011). Formal logic is hollow and sense experience alone needs structure or meaning. Thirdly, truth is built after a scientific hypothesis. Which means, the hypothesis suggested must be measured by reliability and its capacity to fit the facts of experience. If it lacks either reliability or factual adequacy, it is untrue.
We may well ask if the educational system is characterized by a convergent type of thinking, then how can the practice of normal research be a source of novel ideas and revolutions? Kuhn thought that no other sort of work than this tradition-bound one is so well suited to isolate and recognize anomalies that cause crises in science. In other words, normal research provides the background that enables scientists to identify crisis-provoking anomalies: "In the mature sciences the prelude to much discovery and to all novel theory is not ignorance, but the recognition that something has gone wrong with existing knowledge and beliefs." Therefore, the ultimate effect of normal research is invariably to change the
Evidence that often challenges current ideals, evidence that provides ground for disagreement. Scientists take this evidence and go through the experimental process, in hopes to prove or disprove the claim the recent evidence challenges. This is process is a communal process, scientist must often share their evidence, experiments and findings. This is all to come to a consensus on a new or revised theory. The nature of this process depicts the literal process in which disagreement leads to consensus.
The social world has to be verified in a purely empirical manner by understanding of empiricism and realist ontology. Both have a view that the world exists independently of researchers’ knowledge of it and that social phenomena have causal powers on which we can make causal statements. Both Marxist and positivist stress the need for a rigorous scientific method, for scientific analysis of the social phenomenon and natural world. However these two perspectives have some traits which make one unique from another and these are discussions as below, Marxist perspective is more subjective that is to say; describes a problem from the point of view of those experiencing the problem whereas positivist perspective is more objective that is to say; it is interpreted by the researcher about the problem. Marxist perspective focuses less on empirical study and abstains from a historical explanation of social phenomena but focuses on an epistemological position which is sceptical of the naive perceptions that which lead to a proper understanding of the social world without using theoretical framework whereas positivism focuses on ontological realism and objectivity in understanding the world with value free empirical
Positivism and interpretivism are two perspectives of epistemology，first I want to talk about positivism. Positivism is a scientific way to find the truth，it means that people should use scientific study to know and explain the social world，such as observation，measurement and experimentation，only through these ways，that people can get knowledge about the society. There are five important principles in positivism，they are objectivism,empiricism，scientific method，value freedom and instrumental knowledge.As for interpretivism，it pays more attention to human behaviors and the meanings，some people think scientific method may not totally gain the knowledge about human itself，it can not help to understand the meaning of social facts，so they use interpretivism to understand the world（Fulcher，J.&Scott，J.2007），there are also five key points of interpretivism，they are subjectivism，meaning，interpretation，value freedom and
On the other hand there is the investigation and observation of the scientific method, a logical and intricate process of research that identifies new insights and provides a framework to test their authenticity. In this essay I will discuss the benefits and drawbacks of each approach and come to a conclusion about which is a more valuable tool to modern day psychology. Karl Popper (July 1902 - September