Deb Kanya Initial Post Polit & Beck, (2012) describe Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) as an integration of clinical expertise, patient values, and the best research evidence. One of the more challenging aspects of EBP is the actual research on a particular topic. The fact is there is a multitude of journals and reviews etc. on any given subject; for this reason it is imperative that one knows how to conduct a proper search for pertinent information. Due to the complexity of literature searches and the amount of information available it is prudent to follow a guide while doing research.
These numbers are the results of several studies, which
Statistics are not only evidence of the research that author did for this essay, but also a link for readers to start listen to him. If a reader saw the numbers and agreed that it is as critical as the author wrote, that would at least
I strive to enhance the quality of human life through sound investigation and precise medical judgment. I hope to prolong life by simply understanding the mechanism of human disease, validating prevention and identifying the most effective treatment of disease. Research contributes an imperative component in for improvement of patient care, treatment, and prevention of health disparities and because of this I intend to incorporate practice and research. I am currently a senior student studying biology following the pre-medical track at Malone University. Preceding medical school, I intend to obtain additional research experience through biomedical research specifically regarding health disparities research.
Scientific Research and the Unknown Scientific research can be defined using a number of different methods. John M. Barry writes about the scientific process in The Great Influenza, and he uses several different tactics in characterizing it. Barry uses metaphors and unusual syntax in order to characterize scientific research as uncertain and unknown. Barry compares scientific research to venturing into the wilderness in order to characterize it as a journey into the unknown. He begins this comparison by explaining that the best scientists “move deep into a wilderness region where they know almost nothing, where the very tools and techniques needed to clear the wilderness, to bring order to it, do not exist” (Barry 26-29).
Scientific research seems very factual and straight-forward. In reality, science deals with uncertainty, something that, when not used in the right way, creates weaknesses. The uncertainty of scientific research allows scientists to explore intellectually as well as creatively, and “venture into the unknown” to create the known. In his account from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry uses formal diction, strategically placed rhetorical questions, and an appeal to logos to characterize scientific research.
Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.