The structure of the process of scientific knowledge is determined by its methodology. But what is meant by this? Cognition is an empirical method of obtaining knowledge that characterizes the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, which implies strict skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions about how the world works affect how a person interprets perception.
It includes the formulation of hypotheses through induction based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based verification of conclusions drawn from hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of hypotheses based on experimental results. These are the principles of the scientific method, in contrast to a certain series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
Theoretical aspect
Although there are various types and structures of scientific knowledge, in general, there is a continuous process that includes observations about the natural world. People are naturally curious, so they often ask questions about what they see or hear, and often develop ideas or hypotheses about why things are what they are. Better hypotheses lead to predictions that can be tested in various ways.
The most convincing test of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data. Depending on the extent to which additional tests are predicted, the original hypothesis may require refinement, change, expansion, or even deviation. If a specific assumption becomes very well confirmed, a general theory can be developed, as well as the structure of theoretical scientific knowledge.
Procedural (practical) aspect
Although the procedures vary from one area of research to another, they are often the same for different areas. The scientific method process involves creating hypotheses (assumptions), obtaining predictions from them as logical consequences, and then conducting experiments or empirical observations based on these predictions. A hypothesis is a theory based on the knowledge gained when searching for answers to a question.
It can be specific or broad. Scientists then test assumptions by experimenting or researching. The scientific hypothesis must be falsified, implying that it is possible to determine the possible result of an experiment or observation that contradicts the predictions derived from it. Otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully verified.
Experiment
The purpose of the experiment is to determine whether the observations are consistent or contradict the predictions derived from the hypothesis. Experiments can be carried out anywhere - from the garage to the CERN Large Hadron Collider. However, difficulties arise in the formulation of the method. Although the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it is rather a set of general principles.
Not all steps take place in every scientific research (not to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order. Some philosophers and scientists argue that there is no scientific method. So consider the physicist Lee Smolin and the philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his book “Against the Method”).
Issue
The structure of scientific knowledge and cognition is largely determined by its problems. Long-standing disputes in the history of science concern:
- Rationalism, especially with regard to Rene Descartes.
- Inductivism and / or empiricism, as Francis Bacon spoke of this. Disputes have become especially popular with Isaac Newton and his followers;
- Hypothesis-deductivism, which came to the fore at the beginning of the 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 “pseudoscience”. During the 1830s and 1850s, when baconism was popular, naturalists like William Well, John Gerschel, John Stuart Mill, participated in discussions about “induction” and “facts” and focused on how to generate knowledge . At the end of the 19th century, debates about realism versus anti-realism were held as powerful scientific theories that went beyond what was observed, as well as beyond the structure of scientific knowledge and cognition.
The term “scientific method” was widely used in the twentieth century, appearing in dictionaries and scientific textbooks, although its meaning did not reach scientific consensus. Despite growth in the mid-twentieth century, by the end of this century, numerous influential philosophers of science, such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend, questioned the universality of the “scientific method” and, to a large extent, replaced the concept of science as a homogeneous and universal method using heterogeneous and local practice. In particular, Paul Feyerabend argued that there are certain universal rules of science, which determines the specificity and structure of scientific knowledge.
The whole process involves creating hypotheses (theories, assumptions), obtaining predictions from them as logical consequences, and then conducting experiments based on these predictions to determine if the original hypothesis was true. However, difficulties arise in this formulation of the method. Although the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are best seen as general principles.
Not all steps take place in every scientific research (not to the same degree), and they are not always performed in the same order. As the scientist and philosopher William Wowell (1794–1866) noted, “ingenuity, insight, genius” are necessary at every stage. The structure and levels of scientific knowledge were formulated precisely in the 19th century.
Importance of Issues
The question may relate to the explanation of a particular observation - “Why is the sky blue”, but may also be open - “How can I develop a cure for this particular disease.” This phase often involves searching for and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or statements, and the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, another question may be asked based on evidence. When applying the scientific method to research, determining a good question can be very difficult, and this will affect the result of the study.
Hypotheses
An assumption is a theory based on knowledge gained from formulating a question that can explain any given behavior. The hypothesis can be very specific, for example, the principle of Einstein’s equivalence or Francis Crick “DNA makes RNA makes protein”, or it can be wide, for example, unknown species of life live in unexplored depths of the oceans.
The statistical hypothesis is an assumption about a given statistical population. For example, a population may be people with a particular disease. The theory may be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of these people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are the null and alternative hypotheses.
Zero - the assumption that the statistical hypothesis is incorrect. For example, that a new drug does nothing and any medicine is caused by chance. Researchers usually want to show that the null assumption is wrong.
An alternative hypothesis is the desired result that a drug works better than a chance. Last point: a scientific theory must be falsified, which means that it is possible to determine the possible result of an experiment that contradicts the predictions derived from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully verified.
Theory formation
This step involves identifying the logical consequences of the hypothesis. Then one or more forecasts are selected for further testing. The less likely that the prediction will be true just by coincidence, the more convincing it will be if it is fulfilled. Evidence is also more convincing if the answer to the forecast is not yet known, due to the influence of biased bias (see also post).
Ideally, the prognosis should also distinguish the hypothesis from probable alternatives. If two assumptions make the same prediction, observing the forecast is not evidence of one or the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' theorem.)
Hypothesis test
This is a study of whether the real world behaves as a hypothesis predicts. Scientists (and other people) test assumptions by conducting experiments. The goal is to determine if observations of the real world are consistent or contradict predictions derived from the hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the theory increases. Otherwise, it decreases. The agreement 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 verify those experiments that seem most doubtful. A large number of successful confirmations are not convincing 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. A test subject who can unwittingly show others which samples are the desired test drugs and which are the placebo does not know which ones. Such clues can affect the responses of subjects, which sets the structure for a particular experiment. These forms of research are the most important part of the cognitive process. They are also interesting from the point of view of studying its (scientific knowledge) structure, levels and form.
In addition, the failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean that the hypothesis is false. Research always depends on several theories. For example, that the test equipment is working properly and failure can be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. Assumption and experiment are an integral part of the structure (and form) of scientific knowledge.
The latter can be carried out in the college laboratory, on the kitchen table, on the ocean floor, on Mars (using one of the working rovers) and in other places. Astronomers conduct tests looking for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments touch upon very specific topics for practical reasons. As a result, evidence on broader topics usually accumulates gradually, as required by the structure of the methodology of scientific knowledge.
Collection and study of results
This process includes determining what the results of the experiment show, and deciding what to do next. The predictions of the theory are compared with the predictions of the null hypothesis to determine who is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis, such as a chi-square test, may be required.
If evidence disproves the assumption, a new one is required; if the experiment confirms the hypothesis, but the data are not convincing enough for high reliability, other predictions need to be checked. Once the theory is convincingly supported by evidence, a new question may be asked to provide a deeper understanding of the same topic. The same determines the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Data from other scientists and experience is often included at any stage of the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, it may take many iterations to gather enough evidence, and then answer the question with confidence, or create many answers to very specific questions, and then answer one wider one. This method of asking questions determines the structure and forms of scientific knowledge.
If the experiment cannot be repeated to obtain the same results, this means that the original data could be erroneous. As a result, usually one experiment is performed several times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other signs of an experimental error. To obtain 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, examination and other procedures
What is the basis for the authority of the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms? First of all, on the opinion of experts. It is formed by evaluating the experiment by experts who usually give their review anonymously. Some journals require the experimenter to provide lists of possible reviewers, especially if this area is highly specialized.
Peer review does not confirm the correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves were justified (based on the description provided by the experimenter). If a work undergoes peer review, which sometimes may require new experiments requested by reviewers, it will be published in the corresponding scientific publication. A specific magazine that publishes the results indicates the perceived quality of the work.
Recording and data exchange
Scientists, as a rule, are cautious in recording their data - this is a requirement put forward by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others. Although this is usually not required, they may be asked to provide reports to other scientists who want to reproduce their initial results (or parts of their initial results), extending to sharing any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.
Classic model
The classical model of scientific knowledge comes from Aristotle, who distinguished between forms of approximate and exact thinking, outlined a three-dimensional scheme of deductive and inductive conclusions, and also considered complex options, such as a discussion about the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Hypothetical-deductive model
This model or method is the proposed description of the scientific method. Here the predictions from the hypothesis are central: if you assume that 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 false.
Pragmatic model
It's time to talk about the philosophy of structure and methods of scientific knowledge. Charles Sanders Pearce (1839–1914) described the study (study) 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. He, in essence, formulated the structure and logic of scientific knowledge.
Pierce believed that a slow, uncertain attitude towards experiment could be dangerous in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited for theoretical research. Which, in turn, should not be absorbed by other methods and practical purposes. The “first rule” of the mind is that in order to learn, one must strive for learning and, as a result, understand the structure of scientific knowledge, its methods and forms.
Benefits
Paying particular attention to the generation of explanations, Pierce described the term under study as the coordination of three types of inferences in a focused cycle aimed at resolving doubts:
- Explication. An unclear preliminary, but deductive analysis of the 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 argumentation, Euclidean procedure. The explicit derivation of the consequences of the hypothesis as predictions, for induction, to verify the evidence to be found. Investigative or, if necessary, theoretical.
- Induction. (, ) , , ; , - , . , , , , , .
, ( ) , .
, , , , , , , , . , .