The direct realism believe that our sense which captures the world is reliable. The information collected from our sensations is sufficient for an accurate research result. Meanwhile, critical realism believe the world to be in a multi-level. Standing in a different level to conduct a research can even generate a contrasting understanding of the underlying research phenomena. In critical realism, our sensation could deceive us so that being in another level of structures, procedures and process is able to fundamentally change the research result.
The force of the concentrate should be expanded by acquiring a bigger specimen size. The various potential dangers to internal authenticity should be tended to and minimized where possible. It would likewise be useful to be given information in regards to the legitimacy of positive psychology. Without these, it is difficult to assess the potential importance of this study. Acknowledging his comments as opinions or personal observations and then explaining his reasoning could have given a chance to influence a doubtful reader to agreement.
Even though action research is gaining popularity in the research arena, it has been challenged if it is “a legitimate form of inquiry” (Stringer, 2014, p. 41). There are a variety of reasons why this is so. Cohen and Manion (1985) point out the main drawback in action research that it lack what is commonly understood to be scientific rigor, related to the validity, reliability and replicability of research. Nunan (2006) and Burns (1999) both identify that researcher faces problems when conducting action research: the teacher/researcher may find it difficult to critically reflect on their own teaching practice at the same time, and may lacks expertise in carrying out such a project. There can be also difficulties in identifying participants,
I thought that this chapter was interesting because I think in a similar way. He believed that for one to be moral, they need to have an appropriate motive for undertaking a task. It cannot be based on selfish reasons and it does not have to appease the public. You do something because it is right. He also states that we often mistake ideas for our own because of conformity.
Judgment is about making rational decisions and thinking clearly. One should make decisions based on research and not just public opinion. BB&T values employees that exercise good, independent judgment. The foundation for good decision making is based on reality or fact-based research. Often times when people make bad decisions they base their decision on what they wish, rather than reality.
Ranged against welfarism and designed to avoid its pitfalls, they incorporate the powerful ideas of choice and responsibility into various, improved forms of egalitarianism. Such approaches are meant to equalize outcomes, insofar as they are the consequences of causes beyond a person’s control (i.e., beyond circumstances or endowment), but to allow differential outcomes in so far as they result from autonomous choice or ambition. But the approaches are also aimed at maintaining the insight that individual preferences have to count, as the sole basis for a necessary linkage back to the individual perspective: otherwise, there is an overlooking of the person’s
The counter claim of this issue is that it is possible to attain knowledge from history despite biases. History tries to make us understand facts but to prove them we need to perform experiments that might fail but give us a clue of how to try it by another way. When opposing ideas and beliefs come together, people come together to share their knowledge or debate about it. It could maybe bring us closer to the
NHST and the values it produces can help users with identifying a general pattern or transition to the use of more statistical methods that are more appropriate to their experiment. Individuals still seem to confuse what NHST is and what it is not. Many criticisms lie with its use in an unrelated sense, or in data where the values of the NHST do not further the argument or evidence of an experiment. It is important to remember that NHST can be used for certain situations, however, it cannot deviate and become a blanket statistical test for all data and
Though, there are differences between them there are also similarities. A similarity is how an explanation and argument are presented is an effect on its effectiveness. Another is that an explanation and argument can help prove a point or get someone out of a problem. Also, both of them are very important to critical thinking skills which we use at some point in our lives. Explanation and argument are similar and different, but both
Rationalists also help to make sense of the data and to make predictions about what new observations and experiments might show. And through experiments, it will show how successful a prediction is. Therefore theory feeds back on experiment, which in turn tells us how well our theories are doing. With this way of looking at things, one can conclude that both, rationalists and empiricists have qualities that are needed by scientists. Not forgetting about skeptics, they also have qualities that scientists need to adapt since they are the one who test the credibility of a data by questioning or scrutinizing it if there's no evidence to support it as explained earlier in the second