rm - 2013 slides- part 1

Research Methods 1

Week 1

mit enesen - Tolga Kaya

Research Methods - Week 1 1

What are the greatest scientific

discoveries?

Write down your own top ten.


What is science?

Science is an attempt to understand, explain, and predict the world we live in.

Is this a reasonable answer?

If so, what about If so, what about

religion,

astrology,

history,

fortunetelling?


What is science?Do subjects such as

physics,

chemistry,

biology,

art, art,

alchemy,

psychoanalysis

history

constitute science?

What is it that makes something science?


What is it that makes something science?

Many people believe that the distinguishing features of

science lie in the methods scientists use to explain theworld:

Experimentation

Observation Observation

Testing

Theory construction

Can astronomers do experiments on heavens?

Can sociologists conduct tests on society?

Are there successfull general theories in all areas?


Philosophy of science (POS)

The principle task of philosophy of science (POS) is to analyse the methods of inquiry used in science.

A part of the job of POS is to question theassumptions that scientists take for granted.

A definition:

POS is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the

assumptions, foundations, methods, and implicationsof science.


POS, epistemology & metaphysics

POS sometimes overlaps with the notions

of epistemology and metaphysics by exploring whether scientific results are actually a study of truth.

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.

What is knowledge? How can knowledge be acquired?

To what extent is it possible for us to know a given

subject or entity?


POS, metaphysics, & natural philosophy

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being (ontology) and the phenomena within the universe (cosmology).

Prior to the modern science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy (NP).

The scientific method, however, transformed NP into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy.

By the end of the 18th century, NP had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy.


Origins of modern science

The scientific revolution did not come from

knowhere.

In the earlier periods, the dominant view

was Aristotelianism.

Aristotle put forward detailed theories in physics,


Aristotle put forward detailed theories in physics, biology, astronomy, and cosmology.

Contrary to modern chemistry, he believed that all

earthly bodies are composed of four elements: earth, fire, air, and water.


The first step in the development of modern

science was the Copernican revolution.

In 1542 Nicolas Copernicus published a book which

attacked the geocentric model of the universe.

Geocentric (Ptolemaic)


Geocentric (Ptolemaic)

astronomy laid at the

heart of Aristotelian view.

It had been unchallenged

for about 1800 years.


According to Copernicus

the sun was fixed at the

centre of the universe,

the planets, including

the earth, were in orbit


the earth, were in orbit

around the sun.

Following Copernicus, Kepler (1571-1630) discovered that planets do not move in circularorbits but rather in ellipses.


Keplers laws provided a far superior

planetary theory than had ever been

advanced before.

Galileo (1564-1642) was also a life-long supporterof Copernicanism.

He discovered a vast array of stars, mountains on


He discovered a vast array of stars, mountains on the moon, sun-spots, and the moons of Jupiter.

However, his most crucial contribution was the lawof free fall.

He objected the Aristotelean theory that

heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones.


Galileo was the first modern physicist.

He was the first to show that the language

of mathematics could be used to describe

the material world.

Another innovative feature of Galileos work was


Another innovative feature of Galileos work washis emphasis on the importance of testinghypotheses experimentally.

To the modern scientist usage of experimentationmay seem obvious.

But at his time experimentation was not generallyregarded as a reliable tool of gaining knowledge.


Following Galileo, French philosopher,

mathematician, and scientist Ren Descartes (1596-1650) developed his mechanical philosophy.

According to it, physical world consists simply of

inert particles of matter interacting and colliding


inert particles of matter interacting and collidingwith one another.

Mechanical philosophy quickly became

the dominant scientific vision of the end

of 17th century and marked the downfall

of the Aristotelian world view.


Newtons achievements stand unparalleled in thehistory of science.

His masterpiece was Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.

Newton agreed with the mechanicalphilosophers that the universe


Newton agreed with the mechanicalphilosophers that the universeconsists of particles in motion.

He developed a dynamical andmechanical theory of great power.

The theory was based on the three laws of motionand his famous principle of universal gravitation.


Newton developped his theory with greatmathematical precision, inventing the

technique (with Leibniz?) we now call

calculus.

Strikingly, he was able to show that Keplers laws


Strikingly, he was able to show that Keplers laws of planetary motion and Galileos law of free fall were logical consequences of his laws of motion and gravitation.

Newtonian physics provided the framework for science for the next 200 years and advanced the scientific revolution.

Origins of modern science Confidence in Newtonian perspective did

not shatter until the early years of 20th

century.

Einstein, with his relativity theory, showed that Newtonian mechanics does


showed that Newtonian mechanics does

not give the right results when applied to

very massive objects.

On the other hand, quantum mechanicsshowed that Newtonian theory did not

work when applied on a very small scale, subatomic particles.

Origins of modern science In the history of biology, the most

influential event was the publication of

The Origin of Species in 1859.

Darwin argued that contemporaryspecies have actually evolved from


species have actually evolved from

ancestral ones, through a process of

natural selection.

In 1953 Watson and Crick (Franklin?) the structure of DNA, the hereditarymaterial that makes up the genes in

the cells of living creatures.

New disciplines in science

Social sciences

Linguistics

Molecular biology

Computer science


Computer science

Artificial intelligence

Neuroscience

Cognitive science

Typical problems in philosophy of science

The demarcation problem: What is the distinctionbetween the scientific and non-scientific?

Poppers notion of falsifiablity.

The problem of scientific reasoning:

Deduction vs induction. Deduction vs induction.

Humes problem.

Inference to the best explanation (IBE).

The problem of scientific explanation:

Hempels covering law. The problem of symmetry.

The problem of irrelevance. Does casuality exist?


The demarcation problem: Science or non-science

Karl Popper thought that the fundamental feature of a scientific theory is that it should be falsifiable.

To call a theory falsifiable is not to say that it is false.

Rather, it means that the theory makes some definitepredictions that are capable of being tested .predictions that are capable of being tested .

If these predictions turn out to be wrong, then the

theory has been falsified, or disproved.

Popper thought that some supposedly scientific

theories did not satisfy this condition and thus did not

deserve to be called science at all. (Ex: Psychoanalysis)

Rather they were merely pseudo-science.Research Methods - Week 1 21

Critics of Popper

Some philosophers regarded Popper's criterion as overly

simplistic.

Example: Newton's theory made predictions about the paths of the planets. However, the observed orbit of Uranus consistentlydiffered from predictions.

In 1846 two scientists working independently (Adams and

Leverrier ) suggested that there was an undiscovered planetLeverrier ) suggested that there was an undiscovered planetexerting an additional gravitational force of Uranus.

They were able to calculate the mass and position of this planet

would have to have, if its gravitational pull was indeed

responsible for Uranus strange behavior.

Shortly afterwards the planet Neptune was discovered, almost exactly where Adams and Leverrier had predicted.


Critics to Popper

Can we criticize Adams'and Leverrier's behaviour

as unscientific?

After all, it led to the discovery of a new planet.

But they did precisely what Popper criticized and

sticked with a theory that should be consideredsticked with a theory that should be considered

falsified.

Is it actually possible to find some commonfeature shared by all the things we call 'science', and not shared by anything else?

DEMARCATION PROBLEMResearch Methods - Week 1 23

Demarcation problem: Science or non-science

Wittgenstein argued that there is no

fixed set of features that define what

it is to be a 'game'.

Rather, there is a cluster of features most which Rather, there is a cluster of features most which

are possessed by most games.

Yet any particular game may lack any of the features in the cluster and still be a game.

May the same be true of science?


Problem of Scientific Reasoning

What exactly is the nature of scientific reasoning?

How much confidence should we place in the

inferences scientists make?

Deduction

Deductive Inference: If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must be true too.conclusion must be true too.

Example: The first two statements are called

the premisses of the inference.

The third statement is called the

conclusion.

Premiss: A statement or idea that is accepted as being true and that is used as the basis of an argument (www.merriam-webster.com, 2012). 25

Deductive reasoning

What makes the inference deductive is theexistence of an appropriate relation between

premisses and conclusion.

If the premisses are true, the conclusion must be true too. be true too.

Whether the premisses are actually true is adifferent matter, which does not affect the status of the inference as deductive.

If the premisses are wrong, than the conclusioncan be wrong too.


Inductive Reasoning

The first five eggs in the box were rotten.All the eggs have the same best-before date on them.Therefore the sixth egg will be rotten too.

This piece of reasoning is not deductive, for the premisses do not entail the conclusion. premisses do not entail the conclusion.

Even if the first five eggs in the box were rotten, this

does not guarantee that the sixth egg will be rotten too.

It is logically possible for the premiss of this inference

to be true and yet the conclusion false.

This is known as an inductive inference. Research Methods - Week 1 27

Inductive Reasoning

In inductive inference, or inductive reasoning, we move from premisses about objects we have examined to conclusions about objects we haven't examined.

Although deductive reasoning is a much safer activity

than inductive reasoning, scientists frequently make use

of inductive reasoning. of inductive reasoning.

Geneticists tell that Downs syndrome (DS) sufferershave an extra chromozome. How do they know this?

They examine a large number of DS sufferers and

observe that each have an additional chromosome.

They then infer inductively the conclusion that all DS sufferers have an extra chromosome.


Inductive Reasoning

Newton did not arrive at his principle of universalgravitation by examining every single body in the whole universe.

Rather, he saw that the principle held true for the

planets and the sun, and for objects of various sorts

moving near the earth's surface. moving near the earth's surface.

From this data he inferred that the principle held true for all bodies.

Again, this inference was obviously an inductive one.

The fact that Newton's principle holds true for some

bodies doesn't guarantee that it holds true for all bodies.


Inductive vs deductive reasoning

It's obvious that science relies heavily on inductivereasoning.

But, remarkably, Popper claimed that scientists onlyneed to use deductive inferences.

Popper argued that although it is not possible to prove

that a scientific theory is true from a limited sample, it is that a scientific theory is true from a limited sample, it is

possible to prove that a theory is false.

Popper's argument was strong when scientists are only

interested in showing that certain theories are false.

But, what would a scientist who collected experimental

data to convince people that her own theory is true do?

Wouldnt she have to use inductive reasoning? Research Methods - Week 1 30

Humes problem Hume pointed out that an inductive inference rests on the

uniformity of nature (UN) assumption.

UN: Objects we havent examined will be similar, in the relevant respects, to objects of the same sort that we have

examined.

But we cannot prove that UN is true, and we

cannot produce empirical evidence for its truth.

UN is itself an inductive argument, and so itself depends on the UN assumption.

So our inductive inferences rest on an assumption about

the world for which we have no good grounds.

Hume concludes that our confidence in induction is just

blind faith - it admits of no rational justification whatever.Research Methods - Week 1 31

The man who doesnt believe in induction

To argue that induction is

trustworthy because it has worked

well up to now is to reason in an

inductive way.

Such an argument would carry Such an argument would carry

no weight with someone who

doesnt already trust induction.

That was Humes fundamental

point.

But thihk what would happen if

we didnt belive in inductive reasoningResearch Methods - Week 1 32

The Wheel of Science: Induction & Deduction

Research Methods - Week 1 33Babbie

Inference to the best solution (IBS)

The cheese has disappeared apart from a few crumbsScratching noises were heard last nightTherefore, the cheese was eaten by a mouse

It is obvious that this inference is non-deductive: thepremisses do not entail the conclusion. premisses do not entail the conclusion.

The cheese could have been stolen by someone, who cleverly left a few crumbs to make it look like the handiwork of a mouse.

The scratching noises could be due to the boileroverheating.

Nonetheless, the inference is clearly a reasonable one.Research Methods - Week 1 34

Inference to the best solution (IBS)

After all, people do not normally steal cheese, and boilers

do not tend to overheat. Whereas mice do normally eat

cheese when they get the chance, and make sounds.

So although we cannot be certain that the mouse

hypothesis is true, on balance it looks quite plausible.

It is the best way of accounting for the available data. It is the best way of accounting for the available data.

Reasoning of this sort is known as inference to the bestexplanation (IBE).

Scientists frequently use IBE (Darwin, Einstein etc.)

lf we want use IBE we need to decide which of the competing hypotheses provides the best explanation.


Occams razor & parsimony

But what criteria to determine this?

A popular answer is that the best explanation

is the simplest or the most parsimonious one.

Consider again the cheese example.

Preferring a theory that explains the data using Preferring a theory that explains the data using

fewest number of causes does seem sensible.

On the other hand, how do we know that the universe is

simple rather than complex?

Is there any objective reason for thinking that such a

theory is more likely to be true than a less simple theory?

How can we know that Occams razor is the sharpest?Research Methods - Week 1 36

The problem of scientific explanation

Modern science is successfull in supplying explanations.

Chemists can explain why sodium turns yellow when it

burns.

Astronomers can explain why solar eclipse occur.

Economists can explain why the yen declined in value in Economists can explain why the yen declined in value in

the 198os.

But what exactly is scientific explanation?

What exactly does it mean to say that a phenomenon can be 'explained by science?

In the 195os by the American philosopher Carl Hempelproposed a model of scientific explanation.


Hempels covering law (CL)

According to Hempel, to give a scientific

explanation is to provide a satisfactory answer

to an explanation-seeking why question.

The matter is to determine the essential features thatsuch an answer must have.


Hempel's answer to the problem was three-fold:

Firstly, the premisses shoud entail the conclusion, i.e. The argument should be deductive one.

Secondly, the premisses should all be true.

Thirdly, the premisses should consist of at least one general law.

Hempels covering law (CL)

General laws (GL): Laws of nature like All metals conduct electricity or all plants contain chlorophyll.

explanandum

explanans


electricity or all plants contain chlorophyll.

Example: Why did the plant on my desk die?

GL1: Sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis.

GL2: Photosynthesis is necessary for survival.

Particular fact: The plant was not getting any sunlight.

Given the truth of the two laws and the particular fact, the death of the plant had to occur.

Hempels covering law Hempel drew an interesting philosophical consequence

from his model about the relation between explanationand prediction.

Hempel thought: Every reliable explanation is potentiallya prediction, as it would have served to predict thephenomenon in question, had it not already been known.


phenomenon in question, had it not already been known.

Every reliable prediction is potentially an explanation as well. These are two sides of the same coin.

Explanation and prediction are structurally symmetric.

Though Hempels CL model captures many cases it is often criticized of being too liberal. It allows in things tobe excluded.

The problem of symmetry Suppose you are lying on the beach on a sunny day, and you notice that a

flagpole is casting a shadow of 20 metres across the sand. Someone asks

you to explain why the shadow is 20 metres long.

Your answer: Light rays from the sun are hitting the flagpole which is exactly 15 metres high. The angle of the sun is 370. Since light travels in

straight lines, a simple trigonometric calculation (tan 370 =15/20) shows

that the flagpole will cast a shadow 20 metres long.


The problem of symmetry.


The problem of irrelevance Suppose a young child is in a hospital in a room full of

pregnant women. The child notices that one person in the room - who is a man called John - is not pregnantand asks the doctor why not?

Doctor replies:

Johns been taking birth-control pills regularly last few years.


People who take control pills regularly never become pregnant.Therefore, John has not become pregnant. The explanation fits the CL model perfectly.

But, the correct explanation, obviously, is that he is male and males can not become pregnant.

Again CL model is too permissive.

Causality CL model encounters so many problems, it is natural to

look for an alternative way of understanding scientific

explanation.

Some philosophers believe that the key lies in the

concept of causality.

Because, the concept of explanation exhibits an


Because, the concept of explanation exhibits an important asymmetry.

In general, if x explains y given the relevant laws and facts, then it will not be true that y explains x, given the same laws and facts.

Now causality is obviously an asymmetric relation too: if x is the cause of y, then y is not the cause of x.

Humes critics

Empiricism says that all our knowledge comes from experience, empricists are traditionally very suspiciousof the concept of causality.

David Hume, a leading empricist, argued that it is impossible to experience causal relations.

Because causality is a figment of our imagination!


Because causality is a figment of our imagination!

This is a very hard conclusion to accept.

Surely it is an objective fact that dropping glass vases causes them to break? Hume denied this!

Glass vases that have been dropped have

in fact broken. But our idea of causality

includes more than this.

Does causality exist?

It includes the idea of a causal link between the dropping and the breaking, i.e. that the former brings about the latter.

No such links are to be found in the world. Accordingto Hume: all we see is a vase being dropped, and then it breaking a moment later.


it breaking a moment later.

We experience no causal connection between the first event and the second.

According to Hume: causality is therefore a fiction.

Today, many philosophers still think that the concept of causality, although philosophically problematic, is indispensable to how we understand the world.

What is science?

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testableexplanations and predictions about the universe (W).

Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, Science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logicallyand rationally explained.

Science is both a body of knowledge and the process for building that knowledge.


What is not science?

Science works only with testable ideas and it aims to build explanations of the natural world.

Moral judgments,

Aesthetic judgments, Aesthetic judgments,

Decisions about applications of science,

Conclusions about the supernatural,

are outside the realm of science(http://undsci.berkeley.edu)


What is science?

Scientific knowledge is open to question and revision as new ideas surface and new evidence is discovered.

Because it has been tested, scientific knowledge is

reliable.reliable.

Scientific ideas cannot be absolutely proven.

Science is ongoing;

Answering one scientific question frequently leads

to additional questions to be investigated.


What is science?

Scientists try to be objective and work to identify and avoid bias.

Different scientists may interpret the same data in

different ways.

Data interpretation can be influenced by a scientist's Data interpretation can be influenced by a scientist's assumptions, biases, and background.

Researchers share their findings with the scientific community through scientific publications.

Scientists aim for their studies to be replicable

(http://undsci.berkeley.edu)).Research Methods - Week 1 50

What is Science?


The assumptions of Science

Nature is orderly.

We can know nature.

Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

Natural phenomena have natural causes.

Nothing is self evident.

Knowledge is derived from the acquisiton of

experience (empirical).


The research process

Scientific knowledge relies on both reason andexperience.

Two main criteria for to evaluate claims:

Logical validity

Empirical verification

These two criteria are translated into research

activities through the research process.


Research Process

Research Methods - Week 1 55Nachmias & Nachmias

The hallmarks of scientific research

Purposiveness

Rigor

Testability

Replicability Replicability

Precision and Confidence

Objectivity

Generalizability

Parsimony

Research Methods 1 56

Scientific Method

Scientific method is a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century,

consisting in

systematic observation,

measurement, measurement,

experiment,

the formulation, testing, and modification of

hypotheses (Oxford English Dictionary).


Steps of Scientific Method. Define a question

Gather information and resources (observe)

Form an explanatory hypothesis

Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and

collecting data in a reproducible manner


collecting data in a reproducible manner

Analyze the data

Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a

starting point for new hypothesis

Publish results

Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

(Crawford & Stucki, 1990)

Research Process


Building blocks of scientific inquiry

Research Methods - Week 1 61Sekaran

Research Process

Research Methods - Week 1 62Sekaran

Researchers submitting a paper for publication in a journal should check the journal's Instructions for Authors, which will normally be available on the journal's website.

ACS (American Chemical Society)

AGLC (Australian Guide to Legal Citation)

AGPS/AGIMO (Australian Government Publishing Service)

Referencing Styles


AGPS/AGIMO (Australian Government Publishing Service)

AMA (American Medical Association)

APA (American Psychological Association) Chicago Manual of Style

CSE (Council of Science Editors)

Harvard

IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)

MLA (Modern Language Association of America)

Vancouver

APA format for different types of references


Specimen format


Referencing nonprint media


Referencing and quotation in literature review


Referencing and quotation in literaturereview

73

Referencing and quotation in literaturereview

74

Codes of ethics in researchHonestyStrive for honesty in all scientific communications.

Honestly report data, results, methods and procedures, and publication status.

Do not fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data.

Do not deceive colleagues, granting agencies, or the public.

ObjectivityStrive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data Strive to avoid bias in experimental design, data analysis, data interpretation, peer review, personnel decisions, grant writing, expert testimony, and other aspects of research where objectivity is expected or required.

Avoid or minimize bias or self-deception.

Disclose personal or financial interests that may affect research.

IntegrityKeep your promises and agreements;

Act with sincerity; strive for consistency of thought and action.

Codes of ethics in researchCarefulnessAvoid careless errors and negligence; carefully and critically examine your own work and the work of your peers.

Keep good records of research activities, such as data collection, research design, and correspondence with agencies or journals.

OpennessShare data, results, ideas, tools, resources.

Be open to criticism and new ideas.Be open to criticism and new ideas.

Respect for Intellectual PropertyHonor patents, copyrights, and other forms of intellectual property.

Do not use unpublished data, methods, or results without permission.

Give credit where credit is due.

Give proper acknowledgement or credit for all contributions to research.

Never plagiarize.

Codes of ethics in research

ConfidentialityProtect confidential communications, such as papers or grants submitted for publication, personnel records, trade or military secrets, and patient records.

Responsible PublicationPublish in order to advance research and scholarship, not to advance just your own career. just your own career.

Avoid wasteful and duplicative publication.

Responsible MentoringHelp to educate, mentor, and advise students.

Promote their welfare and allow them to make their own decisions.

Respect for colleaguesRespect your colleagues and treat them fairly.

Codes of ethics in researchSocial ResponsibilityStrive to promote social good and prevent or mitigate social harms through research, public education, and advocacy.

Non-DiscriminationAvoid discrimination against colleagues or students on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or other factors that are not related to their scientific competence and integrity.

CompetenceMaintain and improve your own professional competence and expertise through lifelong education and learning; take steps to promote competence in science as a whole.

LegalityKnow and obey relevant laws and institutional and governmental policies.

Codes of ethics in researchAnimal CareShow proper respect and care for animals when using them in research.

Do not conduct unnecessary or poorly designed animal experiments.

Human Subjects ProtectionHuman Subjects ProtectionWhen conducting research on human subjects, minimize harms and risks and maximize benefits;

Respect human dignity, privacy, and autonomy;

Take special precautions with vulnerable populations;

Strive to distribute the benefits and burdens of research fairly.

Source: Resnik, 2012

http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/, (09.10.2012)

Adapted from Shamoo A and Resnik D. 2009. Responsible Conduct of Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press).

rm - 2013 slides- part 1

Documents

philosophy of science

implicationsof science

methods scientists

origins of modern science

methods of inquiry

development of modern

branch of philosophy

natural philosophy np