The structure of the process of scientific knowledge is given by its methodology. But what is to be understood by this? Cognition is an empirical method of obtaining knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which implies strict skepticism about what is being observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works influence how a person interprets perception.
It involves formulating hypotheses through induction based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based tests of inferences drawn from hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of hypotheses based on experimental results. These are the principles of the scientific method, as opposed to a set of steps that apply to all scientific endeavors.
Theoretical aspect
Although there are different types and structures of scientific knowledge, in general, there is a continuous process that involves observations about the natural world. People naturallyare inquisitive, so they often ask questions about what they see or hear, and often come up with ideas or hypotheses about why things are the way they are. The best hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in a variety of ways.
The most convincing hypothesis testing comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on how the additional tests match the predictions, the original hypothesis may need to be refined, modified, expanded, or even rejected. If a particular assumption becomes very well confirmed, a general theory can be developed, as well as a framework for theoretical scientific knowledge.
Procedural (practical) aspect
Although procedures vary from one field of study to another, they are often the same for different fields. The process of the scientific method involves making hypotheses (guesses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then making experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions. A hypothesis is a theory based on knowledge gained while looking for answers to a question.
It can be specific or broad. Scientists then test the assumptions by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that it is possible to determine a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that contradicts the predictions derived from it. Otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.
Experiment
The purpose of the experiment is to determine whether the observations are consistent with or contrary to the predictions derived from the hypothesis. Experiments can be carried out anywhere, from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. However, there are difficulties in formulating the method. Although the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it is more of a set of general principles.
Not all steps take place in every scientific study (not to the same extent), and they are not always in the same order. Some philosophers and scientists argue that there is no scientific method. This is the opinion of the physicist Lee Smolina and the philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his book Against the Method).
Problems
The structure of scientific knowledge and cognition is largely determined by its problems. Perennial disputes in the history of science concern:
- Rationalism, especially with regard to René Descartes.
- Inductivism and/or empiricism, as Francis Bacon put it. The debate became especially popular with Isaac Newton and his followers;
- Hypothesis-deductivism, which came to the fore in the early 19th century.
History
The term "scientific method" or "scientific knowledge" appeared in the 19th century, when there was a significant institutional development of science and a terminology appeared that established clear boundaries between science and non-science, such concepts as "scientist" and "pseudo-science". During the 1830s and 1850sDuring the years when Baconism was popular, naturalists like William Whewell, John Herschel, John Stuart Mill were involved in discussions about "induction" and "facts" and focused on how to generate knowledge. In the late 19th century, realism vs. anti-realism debates were held as powerful scientific theories that transcended the observable as well as the structure of scientific knowledge and cognition.
The term "scientific method" became widespread in the twentieth century, appearing in dictionaries and science textbooks, although its meaning has not reached scientific consensus. Despite growth in the mid-twentieth century, by the end of that century, numerous influential philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend questioned the universality of the "scientific method" and in doing so largely replaced the notion of science as a homogeneous and universal method using a heterogeneous and local practice. In particular, Paul Feyerabend argued that there are some universal rules of science, which determine the specifics and structure of scientific knowledge.
The whole process involves making hypotheses (theories, conjectures), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then running experiments based on those predictions to determine if the original hypothesis was correct. However, there are difficulties in this formulation of the method. Although the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these activities are best viewed as general principles.
Not all steps take place in every scientificstudy (not to the same extent), and they are not always performed in the same order. As the scientist and philosopher William Whewell (1794–1866) noted, "ingenuity, insight, genius" are needed at every stage. The structure and levels of scientific knowledge were formulated precisely in the 19th century.
Importance of questions
The question may refer to explaining a specific observation - "Why is the sky blue" - but it can also be open-ended - "How can I develop a drug to treat this particular disease." This stage often includes seeking and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or claims, and the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, another question based on the evidence can be asked. When applying the scientific method to research, identifying a good question can be very difficult and will affect the outcome of the research.
Hypotheses
Assumption is a theory based on knowledge gained from formulating a question that can explain any given behavior. The hypothesis can be very specific, such as Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein", or it can be broad, such as unknown life species living in the unexplored depths of the oceans.
A statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a given statistical population. For example, the population may be people with a particular disease. The theory could be that the new drug will cure the disease in some of these people. Terms are usuallyassociated with statistical hypotheses are the null and alternative hypotheses.
Null - the assumption that the statistical hypothesis is wrong. For example, that a new drug does nothing and any drug is caused by an accident. Researchers usually want to show that the null guess is wrong.
The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome that the drug works better than chance. One last point: a scientific theory must be falsifiable, which means that it is possible to determine a possible outcome of an experiment that contradicts the predictions derived from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully verified.
Formation of theory
This step involves determining the logical implications of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The less likely a prediction is to be true by mere coincidence, the more convincing it will be if it comes true. The evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not yet known, due to the influence of bias bias (see also message).
Ideally, the forecast should also distinguish the hypothesis from the probable alternatives. If two assumptions make the same prediction, meeting the prediction is not proof of one or the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' theorem.)
Hypothesis testing
This is a study of whether the real world behaves as predictedhypothesis. Scientists (and others) test assumptions by doing experiments. The goal is to determine whether the observations of the real world are consistent or contradict the predictions derived from the hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the theory increases. Otherwise, it decreases. The convention does not guarantee that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems.
Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify the assumptions, that is, to find and test those experiments that seem the most dubious. A large number of successful confirmations is not conclusive if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.
Experiment
Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, drug treatment tests are usually conducted as double-blind tests. The subject, who may unwittingly show others which samples are the desired test drugs and which are the placebo, does not know which ones. Such cues can influence the responses of the subjects, which sets the structure in a particular experiment. These forms of research are the most important part of the learning process. They are also interesting from the point of view of studying its (scientific knowledge) structure, levels and form.
Also, the failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis is wrong. Research always depends on several theories. For example, that the test equipment is working properly andthe failure may be the failure of one of the supporting hypotheses. Conjecture and experiment are integral to the structure (and form) of scientific knowledge.
The latter can be done in a college lab, on a kitchen table, on the ocean floor, on Mars (using one of the working rovers) and elsewhere. Astronomers are conducting tests looking for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments deal with very specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence on broader topics usually accumulates gradually, as required by the structure of the methodology of scientific knowledge.
Collecting and studying results
This process involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding how to proceed. The predictions of the theory are compared with those of the null hypothesis to determine who is best able to explain the data. In cases where the experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-square test may be required.
If the evidence disproves the assumption, a new one is required; if the experiment confirms the hypothesis, but the data is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions need to be tested. Once a theory is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide a deeper understanding of the same topic. This also determines the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Evidence from other scientists and experiences oftenincluded at any stage of the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, it may take many iterations to collect enough evidence and then answer a question with confidence, or create many answers to very specific questions and then answer one broader one. This method of asking questions determines the structure and forms of scientific knowledge.
If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, it means that the original data may have been wrong. As a result, one experiment is usually performed several times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or unexpected results, other scientists may also try to reproduce them for themselves, especially if it will be important for their own work.
External scientific assessment, audit, expertise and other procedures
On what is the authority of the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms based? First of all, on the opinion of experts. It is formed through the evaluation of the experiment by experts, who usually give their review anonymously. Some journals require the experimenter to provide lists of possible reviewers, especially if the field is highly specialized.
The peer review does not confirm the correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves were valid (based on the description provided by the experimenter). If the work is peer-reviewed, which may sometimes require new experiments requestedreviewers, it will be published in the appropriate scientific journal. The particular journal that publishes the results indicates the perceived quality of the work.
Recording and sharing data
Scientists tend to be careful about recording their data, a requirement put forward by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others. Although not normally required, they may be asked to provide reports to other scientists who wish to reproduce their original results (or parts of their original results), extending to the exchange of any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.
Classic
The classical model of scientific knowledge comes from Aristotle, who distinguished between forms of approximate and exact thinking, outlined the tripartite scheme of deductive and inductive reasoning, and also considered complex options, such as reasoning about the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Hypothetical-deductive model
This model or method is a proposed description of the scientific method. Here the predictions from the hypothesis are central: if you assume the theory is correct, what are the implications?
If further empirical research does not demonstrate that these predictions are consistent with the observed world, we can conclude that the assumption is wrong.
Pragmatic Model
It's time to talk about the philosophy of the structure and methods of scientific knowledge. Charles Sanders Pierce (1839–1914) characterizedresearch (study) is not as a pursuit of truth as such, but as a struggle to get away from annoying, restraining doubts generated by surprises, disagreements, and so on. His conclusion is still relevant today. He, in essence, formulated the structure and logic of scientific knowledge.
Pearce believed that a slow, hesitant approach to experiment could be dangerous in practical matters, and that the scientific method was best suited to theoretical research. Which, in turn, should not be absorbed by other methods and practical purposes. The “first rule” of reason is that in order to learn, one must strive to learn and, as a result, understand the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Benefits
With a focus on explanation generation, Peirce described the term he is learning as coordinating three kinds of inference in a purposeful cycle focused on resolving doubt:
- Explication. An obscure preliminary but deductive analysis of a hypothesis in order to make its parts as clear as possible, as required by the concept and structure of the method of scientific knowledge.
- Demonstration. Deductive reasoning, Euclidean procedure. Explicitly inferring the consequences of a hypothesis as predictions, for induction to test, about the evidence to be found. Investigative or, if necessary, theoretical.
- Induction. The long-term applicability of the rule of induction is derived from the principle (assuming that in general the reasoning) isthat the real is only the object of a final opinion to which adequate investigation can lead; whatever such a process will ever lead to will not be real. An induction involving ongoing testing or observation follows a method which, with sufficient conservation, will reduce its error below any predetermined degree.
The scientific method is superior in that it is specifically designed to achieve the (ultimately) most secure beliefs upon which the most successful practices can be based.
Starting from the idea that people are not looking for truth per se, but instead of subduing irritating, holding back doubt, Pierce showed how, through struggle, some can come to obey the truth in the name of the honesty of faith, to seek in as a truth guide for potential practice. He formulated the analytical structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
