Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Ch1 Understanding Scientific Research - Coggle Diagram
Ch1 Understanding Scientific Research
traditional method of acquiring knowledge
intuition
cannot distinguish accurate or not
hypotheses
authority
may be wrong
design study & interpret data
:red_flag:rationalism
can lead two different result
derive hypotheses, identify the outcome is true or false
:red_flag:empiricism (experience)
researcher bias (past perception, memory can drastically change)
must be conducted under controlled condition
collect data, concur with experience is accepted
tenacity (habit)
science
:red_flag:assumption
uniformity or regularity in nature
uniformity or regularity in natural: notion determinism(fully caused by prior natural factors), found probabilistic cause (weaker determinism)
reality in nature
discoverability
:red_flag: characteristic
control (holding constant or eliminate third variable)
operationism
too strict, single operational definition isn't comprehensive
multiple operationalism: multiple measure to construct
:red_flag:replication
fail: effect doesn't exit, not a exact replication,
effect depends on context
:red_flag:meta-analysis: describe the relationship between multiple research study
role of theory
summarize, integrate, guide new research, interaction between theory and empirical observation (discovery-inductive, justification-deductive)
role of scientific
curiosity
patience
objectivity: attitude cannot affect research
change: devise new method or technique
:red_flag:objective
description: portray phenomenon
(characteristic and degree) accurately,
explanation: identify cause and effect
prediction eg. academic success
control: manipulate which influence result,
(a) comparison group (b) eliminate influence of extraneous
(c) manipulate to produce change
method
induction (specific to general,sample to population) or
deduction (general to specific,population to sample)
:red_flag:good hypothesis
variable can be observed or measured
the relationship between variables
the hypothesis can be overthrown (falsification)
hypothesis testing
Duhem-Quine thesis: the observation
may be wrong, instead the theory
naturalism
reject foundational epistemology (deductive and fully certain), should study empirically
empirical adequacy: prediction, support, causal
:red_flag:pseudoscience
creating new hypotheses
exclusive use of confirmation and interpretation of negative finding as support
absence of self-correction
reversed burden of proof
over-reliance on testimonial and anecdotal evidence support
use professional word make people confusing and believe
absence of connection to other disciplines