mir-est.com

Scientific research relies on the application of the scientific method, a harnessing of curiosity. This research provides scientific information and theories for the explanation of the nature and the properties of the world around us. It makes practical applications possible. Scientific research is funded by public authorities, by charitable organizations and by private groups, including many companies. Scientific research can be subdivided into different classifications according to their academic and application disciplines. Generally, research is understood to follow a certain structural process. Though step order may vary depending on the subject matter and researcher, the following steps are usually part of most formal research, both basic and applied: 1. Observations and Formation of the topic 2. Hypothesis 3. Conceptual definitions 4. Operational definition 5. Gathering of data 6. Analysis of data 7. Test, revising of hypothesis 8. Conclusion, iteration if necessary A common misunderstanding is that by this method a hypothesis could be proven or tested. Generally a hypothesis is used to make predictions that can be tested by observing the outcome of an experiment. If the outcome is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is rejected. However, if dental assistant salary the outcome is consistent with the hypothesis, the experiment is said to support the hypothesis. This careful language is used because researchers recognize that alternative hypotheses may also be consistent with the observations. In this sense, a hypothesis can never be proven, but rather only supported by surviving rounds of scientific testing and, eventually, becoming widely thought of as true. A useful hypothesis allows prediction and within the accuracy of observation of the time, the prediction will be verified. As the accuracy of observation improves with time, the hypothesis may no longer provide an accurate prediction. In this case a new hypothesis will arise to challenge the old, and to the extent that the new hypothesis makes more accurate predictions than the old, the new will supplant it. The Mineral-fluid Interface Reactivity Early Stage Training Network (MIR-EST) is comprised of five universities located in Germany, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United Kingdom. The network offers structured training for students pursuing a PhD or Masters degree. It is intended to produce young scientists to fill needs in industry, consulting engineering firms, regulatory agencies, medical assistant salary and local government, in addition to academia. The core objective of the MIR-EST is to provide state-of-the-art training and professional development to young scientists in the field of mineral-fluid reactivity. Mineral-fluid reactions, including dissolution, absorption, nucleation, precipitation, and solid solution formation are key to solving pressing issues, such as the development of smart coatings on body implants or drug delivery systems as well as minimizing risk in groundwater extraction and developing safer pesticide applications. What is the purpose of the Scientific Method? The scientific method is the means by which researchers are able to make conclusive statements about their studies with a minimum of bias. The interpretation of data, for example the result of a new drug study, can be laden with bias. The researcher often has a personal stakes in the results of his work. As any skilled debater knows, just about any opinion can be justified and presented as fact. In order to minimize the influence of personal stakes and biased opinions, a standard method of testing a hypothesis is expected to be used by all members of the scientific Phlebotomy training community. How does the Scientific Method Work? The first step to using the scientific method is to have some basis for conducting your research. This is based on observed phenomena that is either directly or indirectly related to the specific subject matter of your proposed research. For example, you may have observed that Drug A is effective in treating an illness (Disease A) caused my Virus A. A new illness (Disease B) has arisen that mimics some symptoms of Disease A, but with variation (such as the patient with Disease B has swollen lymph nodes and a low grade fever instead of no swelling and a high grade fever). Outbreaks of Disease B occur near outbreaks of Disease A. These are the observations you make in your first step of using the Scientific Method. The next step is to form a hypothesis to explain some aspect of your observations. You speculate that the virus that causes Disease B is either Virus A or it is related to Virus A. Your hypothesis is that the cause of Disease A and Disease B is medical billing job the same virus. Now that you have a hypothesis, you are ready to test it. You must now use your hypothesis to predict other phenomena that have not yet been observed. You know that Drug A will wipe out Disease A. If Disease B is caused by the same virus, you reason that the same drug should be effective. The final step of the scientific method is to rigorously test your prediction. Remember, you cannot “prove” your hypothesis. You can only fail to disprove it. While this is an example of how the scientific method is used in everyday research and hypothesis testing, it is also the basis of creating theories and laws. The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be eliminated if experiments repeatedly contradict predictions. No matter how great a hypothesis sounds, it is only as good as it’s ability to consistently predict experimental results. It should also be noted that a theory or hypothesis is not meaningful if it is not quantitative and testable. If a theory does not allow for predictions and experimental research to confirm these predictions, physician assistant than it is not a scientific theory. Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: “a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased nono hair removal interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. Scientific methodology has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years.[6] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. As William Whewell (1794–1866) noted in his History of Inductive Science (1837) and in Philosophy of Inductive Science (1840), “invention, sagacity, genius” are required at every step in scientific method. It is not enough to base scientific method on experience alone;[7] multiple steps are needed in scientific method, ranging from our experience to our imagination, back and forth. In the 20th century, a hypothetico-deductive model[8] for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below): 1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to mobile phone deals you, then move to step 2. 2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook. 3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow? 4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[9] This model underlies the scientific revolution. One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of steps 1 and 4.[10] Galileo 1638 also showed the importance of step 4 (also called Experiment) in Two New Sciences.[11] One possible sequence in this model would be 1, 2, 3, 4. If the outcome of 4 holds, and 3 is not yet disproven, you may continue with 3, 4, 1, and so forth; but if the outcome of 4 shows 3 to be false, you will have to go back to 2 and try to invent a new 2, deduce a new 3, look for 4, and so Colorado Springs Realtors forth. Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[12] (This is what Einstein meant when he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”[13]) However, as pointed out by Carl Hempel (1905–1997) this simple view of scientific method is incomplete; the formulation of the conjecture might itself be the result of inductive reasoning. Thus the likelihood of the prior observation being true is statistical in nature [14] and would strictly require a Bayesian analysis. To overcome this uncertainty, experimental scientists must formulate a crucial experiment,[15] in order for it to corroborate a more likely hypothesis. In the 20th century, Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961) and others argued that scientists need to consider their experiences more carefully, because their experience may be biased, and that they need to be more exact when describing their experiences.[16] DNA example DNA icon (25×25).png Four basic elements of scientific method are illustrated below, by example from the discovery of the structure of DNA: * DNA-characterizations: in this case, although the cheap auto insurance significance of the gene had been established, the mechanism was unclear to anyone, as of 1950. * DNA-hypotheses: Crick and Watson hypothesized that the gene had a physical basis–it was helical.[17] * DNA-predictions: from earlier work on tobacco mosaic virus,[18] Watson was aware of the significance of Crick’s formulation of the transform of a helix.[19] Thus he was primed for the significance of the X-shape in photo 51. * DNA-experiments: Watson sees photo 51.[20] The examples are continued in “Evaluations and iterations” with DNA-iterations.[21] Beliefs and biases Belief can alter observations; the human confirmation bias is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer would disagree. Researchers have often admitted that the first observations were a little imprecise, whereas the second and third were “adjusted to the facts”. Eventually, factors such as openness to experience, self-esteem, time, and comfort can produce a readiness for new perception. Needham’s Science and Civilization in China uses the ‘flying gallop’ image as an example of observation bias:[24] In these types of images, the cheap iphone legs of a galloping horse are depicted as splayed, while the stop-action pictures of a horse’s gallop by Eadweard Muybridge show otherwise. In a gallop, at the moment that no hoof is touching the ground, a horse’s legs are gathered together and are not splayed. Earlier paintings depict the incorrect flying gallop observation. This image demonstrates Ludwik Fleck’s caution that people observe what they expect to observe, until shown otherwise; their beliefs will affect their observations (and, therefore, their subsequent actions, in a self-fulfilling prophecy). It is for this reason that scientific methodology prefers that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by multiple researchers. With the scientific community’s pursuit of experimental control and reproducibility, cognitive biases are diminished. Elements of scientific method There are different ways of outlining the basic method used for scientific inquiry. The scientific community and philosophers of science generally agree on the following classification of method components. These methodological elements and organization of procedures tend to be more characteristic of natural sciences than social sciences. Nonetheless, the cycle of formulating hypotheses, testing and analyzing Perfect Weddings Singapore the results, and formulating new hypotheses, will resemble the cycle described below. Four essential elements[27][28][29] of a scientific method[30] are iterations,[31][32] recursions,[33] interleavings, or orderings of the following: • Characterizations (observations,[34] definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry) • Hypotheses[35][36] (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)[37] • Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction[38] from the hypothesis or theory) • Experiments[39] (tests of all of the above) Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes. These activities do not describe all that scientists do (see below) but apply mostly to experimental sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology). The elements above are often taught in the educational system.[40] Scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity.[41] In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow, but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods. For example, when Einstein developed the Special and General Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if Singapore wedding the astronomically large, the vanishingly small, and the extremely fast are reduced out from Einstein’s theories — all phenomena that Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations remain. Einstein’s theories are expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and, thus, increase our confidence in Newton’s work. A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[42] 1. Define the question 2. Gather information and resources (observe) 3. Form hypothesis 4. Perform experiment and collect data 5. Analyze data 6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7. Publish results 8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists) The iterative cycle inherent in this step-by-step methodology goes from point 3 to 6 back to 3 again. While this schema outlines a typical hypothesis/testing method,[43] it should also be noted that a number of philosophers, historians and sociologists of science (perhaps most notably Paul Feyerabend) claim that such descriptions of scientific method have little relation to the ways science is actually practiced. The “operational” paradigm combines the concepts of operational definition, instrumentalism, and utility: The essential elements of a bali hotels scientific method are operations, observations, models, and a utility function for evaluating models.[44][not in citation given] • Operation – Some action done to the system being investigated • Observation – What happens when the operation is done to the system • Model – A fact, hypothesis, theory, or the phenomenon itself at a certain moment • Utility Function – A measure of the usefulness of the model to explain, predict, and control, and of the cost of use of it. One of the elements of any scientific utility function is the refutability of the model. Another is its simplicity, on the Principle of Parsimony also known as Occam’s Razor. Characterizations Scientific method depends upon increasingly sophisticated characterizations of the subjects of investigation. (The subjects can also be called unsolved problems or the unknowns.) For example, Benjamin Franklin correctly characterized St. Elmo’s fire as electrical in nature, but it has taken a long series of experiments and theory to establish this. While seeking the pertinent properties of the subjects, this careful thought may also entail some definitions and observations; the observations often demand careful measurements and/or counting. free credit report The systematic, careful collection of measurements or counts of relevant quantities is often the critical difference between pseudo-sciences, such as alchemy, and a science, such as chemistry or biology. Scientific measurements taken are usually tabulated, graphed, or mapped, and statistical manipulations, such as correlation and regression, performed on them. The measurements might be made in a controlled setting, such as a laboratory, or made on more or less inaccessible or unmanipulatable objects such as stars or human populations. The measurements often require specialized scientific instruments such as thermometers, spectroscopes, or voltmeters, and the progress of a scientific field is usually intimately tied to their invention and development. Measurements in scientific work are also usually accompanied by estimates of their uncertainty. The uncertainty is often estimated by making repeated measurements of the desired quantity. Uncertainties may also be calculated by consideration of the uncertainties of the individual underlying quantities that are used. Counts of things, such as the number of people in a nation at a particular time, may also have an uncertainty due to limitations of the method used. Counts may only Ebook Readers represent a sample of desired quantities, with an uncertainty that depends upon the sampling method used and the number of samples taken. Measurements demand the use of operational definitions of relevant quantities. That is, a scientific quantity is described or defined by how it is measured, as opposed to some more vague, inexact or “idealized” definition. For example, electrical current, measured in amperes, may be operationally defined in terms of the mass of silver deposited in a certain time on an electrode in an electrochemical device that is described in some detail. The operational definition of a thing often relies on comparisons with standards: the operational definition of “mass” ultimately relies on the use of an artifact, such as a certain kilogram of platinum-iridium kept in a laboratory in France. The scientific definition of a term sometimes differs substantially from its natural language usage. For example, mass and weight overlap in meaning in common discourse, but have distinct meanings in mechanics. Scientific quantities are often characterized by their units of measure which can later be described in terms of conventional physical units Elliptical Machine when communicating the work. New theories sometimes arise upon realizing that certain terms had not previously been sufficiently clearly defined. For example, Albert Einstein’s first paper on relativity begins by defining simultaneity and the means for determining length. These ideas were skipped over by Isaac Newton with, “I do not define time, space, place and motion, as being well known to all.” Einstein’s paper then demonstrates that they (viz., absolute time and length independent of motion) were approximations. Francis Crick cautions us that when characterizing a subject, however, it can be premature to define something when it remains ill-understood.[46] In Crick’s study of consciousness, he actually found it easier to study awareness in the visual system, rather than to study free will, for example. His cautionary example was the gene; the gene was much more poorly understood before Watson and Crick’s pioneering discovery of the structure of DNA; it would have been counterproductive to spend much time on the definition of the gene, before them. Example of characterizations DNA-characterizations The history of the discovery of the structure of DNA is a classic website laten maken example of the elements of scientific method: in 1950 it was known that genetic inheritance had a mathematical description, starting with the studies of Gregor Mendel. But the mechanism of the gene was unclear. Researchers in Bragg’s laboratory at Cambridge University made X-ray diffraction pictures of various molecules, starting with crystals of salt, and proceeding to more complicated substances. Using clues which were painstakingly assembled over the course of decades, beginning with its chemical composition, it was determined that it should be possible to characterize the physical structure of DNA, and the X-ray images would be the vehicle.[47] ..2. DNA-hypotheses Precession of Mercury Precession of the perihelion (exaggerated) The characterization element can require extended and extensive study, even centuries. It took thousands of years of measurements, from the Chaldean, Indian, Persian, Greek, Arabic and European astronomers, to record the motion of planet Earth. Newton was able to condense these measurements into consequences of his laws of motion. But the perihelion of the planet Mercury’s orbit exhibits a precession that is not fully explained by Newton’s laws of motion (see diagram to the stop dog barking right). The observed difference for Mercury’s precession between Newtonian theory and relativistic theory (approximately 43 arc-seconds per century), was one of the things that occurred to Einstein as a possible early test of his theory of General Relativity. Hypothesis development A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena. Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic. Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the “irritation of doubt” to venture a plausible guess, free online dating as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a “flash of inspiration”, or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology. William Glen observes that the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived “truth”, or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.[48] In general scientists tend to look for theories that are “elegant” or “beautiful”. In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam’s Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these determinations. DNA-hypotheses Linus Pauling proposed that DNA might be a triple helix.[49] This hypothesis was also considered by Francis Crick and James D. Watson but discarded. When Watson and Cheap Contact Lenses Crick learned of Pauling’s hypothesis, they understood from existing data that Pauling was wrong[50] and that Pauling would soon admit his difficulties with that structure. So, the race was on to figure out the correct structure (except that Pauling did not realize at the time that he was in a race—see section on “DNA-predictions” below) Predictions from the hypothesis Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions, by reasoning including deductive reasoning. It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction can also be statistical and only talk about probabilities. It is essential that the outcome be currently unknown. Only in this case does the eventuation increase the probability that the hypothesis be true. If the outcome is already known, it’s called a consequence and should have already been considered while formulating the hypothesis. If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet useful for the method, and must wait for others who might come afterward, and perhaps rekindle its line of reasoning. For example, coupons a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible. DNA-predictions James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and others hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure. This implied that DNA’s X-ray diffraction pattern would be ‘x shaped’.[51][52] This prediction followed from the work of Cochran, Crick and Vand[19] (and independently by Stokes). The Cochran-Crick-Vand-Stokes theorem provided a mathematical explanation for the empirical observation that diffraction from helical structures produces x shaped patterns. Also in their first paper, Watson and Crick predicted that the double helix structure provided a simple mechanism for DNA replication, writing “It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material”. General relativity Einstein’s theory of General Relativity makes several specific predictions about the observable structure of space-time, such as a prediction that light bends in a gravitational field and that the amount of bending depends in a precise way on the strength of that gravitational field. Arthur Eddington’s observations made during a 1919 solar eclipse supported General Relativity rather than Newtonian gravitation Once predictions are cash advance made, they can be tested by experiments. If test results contradict predictions, then the hypotheses are called into question and explanations may be sought. Sometimes experiments are conducted incorrectly and are at fault. If the results confirm the predictions, then the hypotheses are considered likely to be correct but might still be wrong and are subject to further testing. The experimental control is a technique for dealing with observational error. This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions, to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed. Mill’s canons can then help us figure out what the important factor is.[55] Factor analysis is one technique for discovering the important factor in an effect. Depending on the predictions, the experiments can have different shapes. It could be a classical experiment in a laboratory setting, a double-blind study or an archaeological excavation. Even taking a plane from New York to Paris is an experiment which tests the aerodynamical hypotheses used for constructing the plane. Scientists assume Car Insurance an attitude of openness and accountability on the part of those conducting an experiment. Detailed record keeping is essential, to aid in recording and reporting on the experimental results, and providing evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure. They will also assist in reproducing the experimental results. Traces of this tradition can be seen in the work of Hipparchus (190-120 BCE), when determining a value for the precession of the Earth, while controlled experiments can be seen in the works of Muslim scientists such as J?bir ibn Hayy?n (721-815 CE), al-Battani (853–929) and Alhacen (965-1039). DNA-experiments Watson and Crick showed an initial (and incorrect) proposal for the structure of DNA to a team from Kings College – Rosalind Franklin, Maurice Wilkins, and Raymond Gosling. Franklin immediately spotted the flaws which concerned the water content. Later Watson saw Franklin’s detailed X-ray diffraction images which showed an X-shape and confirmed that the structure was helical.[20][56] This rekindled Watson and Crick’s model building and led to the correct structure Evaluation and improvement The scientific process is iterative. At any stage it is possible Payday Loans to refine its accuracy and precision, so that some consideration will lead the scientist to repeat an earlier part of the process. Failure to develop an interesting hypothesis may lead a scientist to re-define the subject they are considering. Failure of a hypothesis to produce interesting and testable predictions may lead to reconsideration of the hypothesis or of the definition of the subject. Failure of the experiment to produce interesting results may lead the scientist to reconsidering the experimental method, the hypothesis or the definition of the subject. Other scientists may start their own research and enter the process at any stage. They might adopt the characterization and formulate their own hypothesis, or they might adopt the hypothesis and deduce their own predictions. Often the experiment is not done by the person who made the prediction and the characterization is based on experiments done by someone else. Published results of experiments can also serve as a hypothesis predicting their own reproducibility. DNA-iterations After considerable fruitless experimentation, being discouraged by their superior from continuing, and numerous false starts,[57][58][59] Watson and Crick were able tenant screening to infer the essential structure of DNA by concrete modeling of the physical shapes of the nucleotides which comprise it.[21][60] They were guided by the bond lengths which had been deduced by Linus Pauling and by Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray diffraction images Confirmation Science is a social enterprise, and scientific work tends to be accepted by the community when it has been confirmed. Crucially, experimental and theoretical results must be reproduced by others within the scientific community. Researchers have given their lives for this vision; Georg Wilhelm Richmann was killed by ball lightning (1753) when attempting to replicate the 1752 kite-flying experiment of Benjamin Franklin.[61] To protect against bad science and fraudulent data, governmental research-granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and science journals including Nature and Science, have a policy that researchers must archive their data and methods so other researchers can access it, test the data and methods and build on the research that has gone before. Scientific data archiving can be done at a number of national archives in the U.S. or in the World Data Center. Classical model Meladerm The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle,[62] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy. Pragmatic model In 1877,[63] Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced /?p?rs/ “purse”) (1839–1914) characterized inquiry in general not as the pursuit of truth per se but as the struggle to move from irritating, inhibitory doubts born of surprises, disagreements, and the like, and to reach a secure belief, belief being that on which one is prepared to act. He framed scientific inquiry as part of a broader spectrum and as spurred, like inquiry generally, by actual doubt, not mere verbal or hyperbolic doubt, which he held to be fruitless.[64] He outlined four methods of settling opinion, ordered from least to most successful: 1. The method of tenacity (policy of sticking to initial belief) — which brings comforts and decisiveness but leads to trying to ignore contrary information and others’ views as if truth were intrinsically private, not public. It goes against the social impulse and Reverse phone number lookup easily falters since one may well notice when another’s opinion is as good as one’s own initial opinion. Its successes can shine but tend to be transitory. 2. The method of authority — which overcomes disagreements but sometimes brutally. Its successes can be majestic and long-lived, but it cannot operate thoroughly enough to suppress doubts indefinitely, especially when people learn of other societies present and past. 3. The method of congruity or the a priori or the dilettante or “what is agreeable to reason” — which promotes conformity less brutally but depends on taste and fashion in paradigms and can go in circles over time, along with barren disputation. It is more intellectual and respectable but, like the first two methods, sustains capricious and accidental beliefs, destining some minds to doubts. 4. The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself. Peirce held that slow, stumbling ratiocination can be dangerously inferior to instinct and traditional sentiment in practical matters, and that the scientific method is best suited to theoretical research,[65] which in fitted wardrobes turn should not be trammeled by the other methods and practical ends; reason’s “first rule” is that, in order to learn, one must desire to learn and, as a corollary, must not block the way of inquiry.[66] The scientific method excels the others by being deliberately designed to arrive — eventually — at the most secure beliefs, upon which the most successful practices can be based. Starting from the idea that people seek not truth per se but instead to subdue irritating, inhibitory doubt, Peirce showed how, through the struggle, some can come to submit to truth for the sake of belief’s integrity, seek as truth the guidance of potential practice correctly to its given goal, and wed themselves to the scientific method.[63][67] For Peirce, rational inquiry implies presuppositions about truth and the real; to reason is to presuppose (and at least to hope), as a principle of the reasoner’s self-regulation, that the real is discoverable and independent of our vagaries of opinion. In that vein he defined truth as the correspondence of a sign (in particular, a proposition) to its object hair loss treatment and, pragmatically, not as actual consensus of some definite, finite community (such that to inquire would be to poll the experts), but instead as that final opinion which all investigators would reach sooner or later but still inevitably, if they were to push investigation far enough, even when they start from different points.[68] In tandem he defined the real as a true sign’s object (be that object a possibility or quality, or an actuality or brute fact, or a necessity or norm or law), which is what it is independently of any finite community’s opinion and, pragmatically, depends only on the final opinion destined in a sufficient investigation. That is a destination as far, or near, as the truth itself to you or me or the given finite community. Thus his theory of inquiry boils down to “Do the science.” Those conceptions of truth and the real involve the idea of a community both without definite limits (and thus potentially self-correcting as far as needed) and capable of definite increase of knowledge.[69] As inference, “logic is rooted in the social principle” since hostgator coupon it depends on a standpoint that is, in a sense, unlimited.[70] Paying special attention to the generation of explanations, Peirce outlined scientific method as a coordination of three kinds of inference in a purposeful cycle aimed at settling doubts, as follows:[71] 1. Abduction (or retroduction). Guessing, inference to explanatory hypotheses for selection of those best worth trying. From abduction, Peirce distinguishes induction as inferring, on the basis of tests, the proportion of truth in the hypothesis. Every inquiry, whether into ideas, brute facts, or norms and laws, arises from surprising observations in one or more of those realms (and for example at any stage of an inquiry already underway). All explanatory content of theories comes from abduction, which guesses a new or outside idea so as to account in a simple, economical way for a surprising or complicative phenomenon. Oftenest, even a well-prepared mind guesses wrong. But the modicum of success of our guesses far exceeds that of sheer luck and seems born of attunement to nature by instincts developed or inherent, especially insofar as best guesses are optimally plausible and simple life insurance quotes in the sense, said Peirce, of the “facile and natural”, as by Galileo’s natural light of reason and as distinct from “logical simplicity”. Abduction is the most fertile but least secure mode of inference. Its general rationale is inductive: it succeeds often enough and, without it, there is no hope of sufficiently expediting inquiry (often multi-generational) toward new truths.[72] Coordinative method leads from abducing a plausible hypothesis to judging it for its testability[73] and for how its trial would economize inquiry itself.[74] Peirce calls his pragmatism “the logic of abduction”.[75] His pragmatic maxim is: “Consider what effects that might conceivably have practical bearings you conceive the objects of your conception to have. Then, your conception of those effects is the whole of your conception of the object”.[68] His pragmatism is a method of reducing conceptual confusions fruitfully by equating the meaning of any conception with the conceivable practical implications of its object’s conceived effects — a method of experimentational mental reflection hospitable to forming hypotheses and conducive to testing them. It favors efficiency. The hypothesis, being insecure, needs to have practical implications seo company leading at least to mental tests and, in science, lending themselves to scientific tests. A simple but unlikely guess, if uncostly to test for falsity, may belong first in line for testing. A guess’s objective probability recommends it as worth testing, while subjective likelihood can be misleading. Guesses can be chosen for trial strategically, for which Peirce gave as example the game of Twenty Questions.[76] One can hope to discover only that which time would reveal through a learner’s sufficient experience anyway, so the point is to expedite it; the economy of research is what demands the “leap” of abduction and governs its art.[74] 2. Deduction. Analysis of hypothesis and deduction of its consequences (for induction to test so as to evaluate the hypothesis). Two stages: i. Explication. Logical analysis of the hypothesis in order to render its parts as clear as possible. ii. Demonstration (or deductive argumentation). Deduction of hypothesis’s consequence. Corollarial or, if needed, Theorematic. 3. Induction. The long-run validity of the rule of induction is deducible from the principle (presuppositional to reasoning in general[68]) that the real is only stop dog biting the object of the final opinion to which adequate investigation would lead[77] Induction involving ongoing tests or observations follows a method which, sufficiently persisted in, will diminish its error below any predesignate degree[71] and, if there were something to which such a process would never lead, then that thing would not be real. Three stages: i. Classification. Classing objects of experience under general ideas. ii. Probation (or direct Inductive Argumentation): Crude (the enumeration of instances) or Gradual (new estimate of proportion of truth in the hypothesis after each test). Gradual Induction is Qualitative or Quantitative; if Quantitative, then dependent on measurements, or on statistics, or on countings. iii. Sentential Induction. “…which, by Inductive reasonings, appraises the different Probations singly, then their combinations, then makes self-appraisal of these very appraisals themselves, and passes final judgment on the whole result”.[71] Computational approaches Many subspecialties of applied logic and computer science, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, computational learning theory, inferential statistics, and knowledge representation, are concerned with setting out computational, logical, and statistical frameworks for the various types of inference involved in scientific inquiry. small dog breeds In particular, they contribute hypothesis formation, logical deduction, and empirical testing. Some of these applications draw on measures of complexity from algorithmic information theory to guide the making of predictions from prior distributions of experience, for example, see the complexity measure called the speed prior from which a computable strategy for optimal inductive reasoning can be derived. Communication and community Frequently a scientific method is employed not only by a single person, but also by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Such cooperation can be regarded as one of the defining elements of a scientific community. Various techniques have been developed to ensure the integrity of that scientific method within such an environment. Peer review evaluation Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists’ manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or pseudoscientific work, to Swimming Pool help cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise to improve the quality of the material. Documentation and replication Main article: Reproducibility Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from a scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results. Consequently, it is a common practice for other scientists to attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results, thus further validating the hypothesis. Archiving As a result, researchers are expected to practice scientific data archiving in compliance with the policies of government funding agencies and scientific journals. Detailed records of their experimental procedures, raw data, statistical analyses and source code are preserved in order to provide evidence of the effectiveness and integrity of the procedure and assist in reproduction. These procedural records may also assist in the conception of new experiments to test the hypothesis, and may prove useful to engineers who might examine the potential practical applications of a discovery. Data sharing When additional information is needed before a study can be reproduced, the author of the study aloe vera is expected to provide it promptly. If the author refuses to share data, appeals can be made to the journal editors who published the study or to the institution which funded the research. Limitations Since it is impossible for a scientist to record everything that took place in an experiment, facts selected for their apparent relevance are reported. This may lead, unavoidably, to problems later if some supposedly irrelevant feature is questioned. For example, Heinrich Hertz did not report the size of the room used to test Maxwell’s equations, which later turned out to account for a small deviation in the results. The problem is that parts of the theory itself need to be assumed in order to select and report the experimental conditions. The observations are hence sometimes described as being ‘theory-laden’. Dimensions of practice Further information: Rhetoric of science The primary constraints on contemporary western science are: • Publication, i.e. Peer review • Resources (mostly funding) It has not always been like this: in the old days of the “gentleman scientist” funding (and to a lesser extent publication) were far weaker constraints. male pattern baldness Both of these constraints indirectly bring in a scientific method — work that too obviously violates the constraints will be difficult to publish and difficult to get funded. Journals do not require submitted papers to conform to anything more specific than “good scientific practice” and this is mostly enforced by peer review. Originality, importance and interest are more important – see for example the author guidelines for Nature. Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticized. Thomas Samuel Kuhn examined the history hair transplant of science in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and found that the actual method used by scientists differed dramatically from the then-espoused method. His observations of science practice are essentially sociological and do not speak to how science is or can be practiced in other times and other cultures. Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn have done extensive work on the “theory laden” character of observation. Kuhn (1961) said the scientist generally has a theory in mind before designing and undertaking experiments so as to make empirical observations, and that the “route from theory to measurement can almost never be traveled backward”. This implies that the way in which theory is tested is dictated by the nature of the theory itself, which led Kuhn (1961, p. 166) to argue that “once it has been adopted by a profession … no theory is recognized to be testable by any quantitative tests that it has not already passed”.[78] Paul Feyerabend similarly examined the history of science, and was led to deny that science is genuinely a methodological process. In his book Against Method he towels argues that scientific progress is not the result of applying any particular method. In essence, he says that “anything goes”, by which he meant that for any specific methodology or norm of science, successful science has been done in violation of it. Criticisms such as his led to the strong programme, a radical approach to the sociology of science. In his 1958 book, Personal Knowledge, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi (1891–1976) criticized the common view that the scientific method is purely objective and generates objective knowledge. Polanyi cast this view as a misunderstanding of the scientific method and of the nature of scientific inquiry, generally. He argued that scientists do and must follow personal passions in appraising facts and in determining which scientific questions to investigate. He concluded that a structure of liberty is essential for the advancement of science – that the freedom to pursue science for its own sake is a prerequisite for the production of knowledge through peer review and the scientific method. The postmodernist critiques of science have themselves been the subject of intense controversy. This ongoing debate, Mage Monster known as the science wars, is the result of conflicting values and assumptions between the postmodernist and realist camps. Whereas postmodernists assert that scientific knowledge is simply another discourse (note that this term has special meaning in this context) and not representative of any form of fundamental truth, realists in the scientific community maintain that scientific knowledge does reveal real and fundamental truths about reality. Many books have been written by scientists which take on this problem and challenge the assertions of the postmodernists while defending science as a legitimate method of deriving truth.[ Highly controlled experimentation allows researchers to catch their mistakes, but it also makes anomalies (which no one knew to look for) easier to see Somewhere between 33% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are estimated to have been stumbled upon, rather than sought out. This may explain why scientists so often express that they were lucky. Louis Pasteur is credited with the famous saying that "Luck favours the prepared mind", but some psychologists have begun to study what it means to be 'prepared for luck' in the scientific the authority formula context. Research is showing that scientists are taught various heuristics that tend to harness chance and the unexpected. This is what professor of economics Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "Anti-fragility"; while some systems of investigation are fragile in the face of human error, human bias, and randomness, the scientific method is more than resistant or tough - it actually benefits from such randomness in many ways (it is anti-fragile). Taleb believes that the more anti-fragile the system, the more it will flourish in the real world. Psychologist Kevin Dunbar says the process of discovery often starts with researchers finding bugs in their experiments. These unexpected results lead researchers to try and fix what they think is an error in their methodology. Eventually, the researcher decides the error is too persistent and systematic to be a coincidence. The highly controlled, cautious and curious aspects of the scientific method are thus what make it well suited for identifying such persistent systematic errors. At this point, the researcher will begin to think of theoretical explanations for the error, often seeking the help of colleagues across different Authority Formula Review domains of expertise. The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Ancient Egyptian documents describe empirical methods in astronomy,[85] mathematics,[86] and medicine.[87] The ancient Greek philosopher Thales in the 6th century BC refused to accept supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena, proclaiming that every event had a natural cause. The development of deductive reasoning by Plato was an important step towards the scientific method. Empiricism seems to have been formalized by Aristotle, who believed that universal truths could be reached via induction. There are hints of experimental methods from the Classical world (e.g., those reported by Archimedes in a report recovered early in the 20th century CE from an overwritten manuscript), but the first clear instances of an experimental scientific method seem to have been developed in the Arabic world, by Muslim scientists (See Alhazen),[88] who introduced the use of experimentation and quantification to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, perhaps by Alhazen in his optical experiments reported in his Book of Optics (1021).[89][unreliable source?] The modern scientific method Fast Cash Commissions crystallized no later than in the 17th and 18th centuries. In his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to Aristotle’s Organon — Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism.[90] Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific method’s guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method. The writings of Alhazen, Bacon and Descartes are considered critical in the historical development of the modern scientific method, as are those of John Stuart Mill.[91] In the late 19th century, Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a schema that would turn out to have considerable influence in the development of current scientific method generally. Peirce accelerated the progress on several fronts. Firstly, speaking in broader context in “How to Make Our Ideas Clear” (1878), Peirce outlined an objectively verifiable method to test the truth of putative knowledge on a way that goes beyond mere foundational alternatives, focusing upon both deduction and induction. He thus placed induction and deduction in a complementary rather than competitive context (the latter of which had been the primary Straddle Trader Pro trend at least since David Hume, who wrote in the mid-to-late 18th century). Secondly, and of more direct importance to modern method, Peirce put forth the basic schema for hypothesis/testing that continues to prevail today. Extracting the theory of inquiry from its raw materials in classical logic, he refined it in parallel with the early development of symbolic logic to address the then-current problems in scientific reasoning. Peirce examined and articulated the three fundamental modes of reasoning that, as discussed above in this article, play a role in inquiry today, the processes that are currently known as abductive, deductive, and inductive inference. Thirdly, he played a major role in the progress of symbolic logic itself — indeed this was his primary specialty. Beginning in the 1930s, Karl Popper argued that there is no such thing as inductive reasoning.[92] All inferences ever made, including in science, are purely[93] deductive according to this view. Accordingly, he claimed that the empirical character of science has nothing to do with induction—but with the deductive property of falsifiability that scientific hypotheses have. Contrasting his views with inductivism world flags and positivism, he even denied the existence of scientific method: “(1) There is no method of discovering a scientific theory (2) There is no method for ascertaining the truth of a scientific hypothesis, i.e., no method of verification; (3) There is no method for ascertaining whether a hypothesis is ‘probable’, or probably true”.[94] Instead, he held that there is only one universal method, a method not particular to science: The negative method of criticism, or colloquially termed trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life. Following Peirce and others, Popper argued that science is fallible and has no authority.[94] In contrast to empiricist-inductivist views, he welcomed metaphysics and philosophical discussion and even gave qualified support to myths[95] and pseudosciences.[96] Popper’s view has become known as critical rationalism. Relationship with mathematics Science is the process of gathering, comparing, and evaluating proposed models against observables. A model can be a simulation, mathematical or chemical formula, or set of proposed steps. Science is like mathematics in memory foam mattress that researchers in both disciplines can clearly distinguish what is known from what is unknown at each stage of discovery. Models, in both science and mathematics, need to be internally consistent and also ought to be falsifiable (capable of disproof). In mathematics, a statement need not yet be proven; at such a stage, that statement would be called a conjecture. But when a statement has attained mathematical proof, that statement gains a kind of immortality which is highly prized by mathematicians, and for which some mathematicians devote their lives.[97] Mathematical work and scientific work can inspire each other.[98] For example, the technical concept of time arose in science, and timelessness was a hallmark of a mathematical topic. But today, the Poincaré conjecture has been proven using time as a mathematical concept in which objects can flow (see Ricci flow). Nevertheless, the connection between mathematics and reality (and so science to the extent it describes reality) remains obscure. Eugene Wigner’s paper, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, is a very well-known account of the issue from a Nobel Prize physicist. world flags In fact, some observers (including some well known mathematicians such as Gregory Chaitin, and others such as Lakoff and Núñez) have suggested that mathematics is the result of practitioner bias and human limitation (including cultural ones), somewhat like the post-modernist view of science. George Pólya’s work on problem solving,[99] the construction of mathematical proofs, and heuristic[100][101] show that the mathematical method and the scientific method differ in detail, while nevertheless resembling each other in using iterative or recursive steps. What is a Hypothesis? It is important to distinguish between a hypothesis, and a theory or law. Although in everyday language, people sometimes use these terms interchangeably, they have very distinct connotations in the scientific community. A hypothesis is a ‘small’ cause and effect statement about a specific set of circumstances. It represents a belief that a researcher possesses before conducting a satisfactory number of experiments that could potentially disprove that belief. For example, you open your refrigerator at home and are greeted with a horrible sour smell. You decide that the milk must have gone bad. This is your hypothesis. It is car prices based on the phenomena your are observing right now (sour smell) as well as knowledge from past experience (bad milk has a sour smell). You test your hypothesis by opening the container of milk and smelling it. You find that the milk doesn’t smell sour after all, so you must come up with another hypothesis (maybe it is the leftover lasagna from last week!). A theory or law in the world of science is a hypothesis, or many hypotheses, which have undergone rigorous tests and have never been disproved. There is no set number of tests or a set length of time in which a hypothesis can become a theory or a law. A hypothesis becomes a theory or law when it is the general consensus of the scientific community that it should be so. Theories and laws are not as easily discarded as hypotheses. Misapplications of the Scientific Method A common error encountered by people who claim to use the scientific method is a lack of testing. A hypothesis brought about by common observations or common sense does not have scientific Phuket validity. As stated above, even though a good debater may be quite convincing as he conveys the merits of his theory, logical arguments are not an acceptable replacement for experimental testing. Although the purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate researcher bias, an investigation of the raw data from an experiment is always a good idea. Researchers sometimes toss out data that does not support their hypothesis. This isn’t necessarily done with the intent of deception, it is sometimes done because the researcher so passionately believes in his hypothesis that he assumes unsupportive data must have been obtained in error. Other times, outside forces (such as the corporation sponsoring and conducting the research) may put extreme pressure on the researcher to get specific results. The best way for the scientific community, and the general public, to deal with these errors is to promote multiple, independent experiments. We are all familiar with “breaking news” (that seems to break nearly every day!) about a new miracle drug or herbal remedy. In most cases, this “breaking news” was released by a single source–usually a seo company source with financial stakes in the new miracle. Look for multiple sources to confirm a hypothesis before you hand your money over for a new product. If possible, also try to discover where the funding came from in these experiments. You may have three different lab reports, all confirming that Drug A is the most effective cure, but if all three laboratories are funded by the same drug company-you may want to raise an eyebrow. Defining the Question: This step involves narrowing possible topics and then choosing the question to be the focus of your research. Your question should be specific. You may need to gather more information before you decide on your final question. Ask yourself: Specifically, what do I want to know? What is the purpose of asking this question? What will the answer tell me? Can this question be answered through research? (Can I describe how I might answer it?)Is it feasible? (Can I do it with the time and equipment available to me?) Forming a Hypothesis/Hypotheses:This step helps you answer the question: Locating Resources/Gathering Information & Materials: This Cheap Contact Lenses step helps you to become smarter about the topic you are researching and how you can research it. The more information you have, the better research question you can ask. To help you gather information, ask yourself: Planning the Research/Developing Data Collection Methods: This step involves making a very specific plan about how you will conduct your research and collect your data. In the end, your procedure should be clear enough so that someone else could follow it exactly. To plan your research and develop your procedure, ask yourself: How will I answer my research question/test my hypotheses? What data do I need to collect? How will I collect these data? What equipment or supplies do I need? Do I have a reference point (control) with which to compare my data? To answer my question, do I need to manipulate variables? How many (samples, sites, tests, etc.) do I need? What record-keeping techniques (e.g. data sheet, journal) will I use? Are my data collection techniques organized and thorough? Are there sequential steps to my research? If so, what are they? How will medicare part d I plan my time? Collecting Data: Be sure that you write down all of the information (data) that could affect the answer to your research question. When you collect the data, ask yourself: Am I recording all relevant data? Can I read and understand my notes? Am I keeping track of what I did at each step? Am I being objective in my data collection? Organizing & Analyzing the Data: This step gives you the chance to pull together the data you’ve collected and look at it more closely. Compare and contrast the information you’ve gathered to see the results of your research. Ask yourself: How will I organize and summarize the data I’ve collected? What do my data show? How should I present my data graphically so that others can see the results clearly? (e.g. bar graphs, tables, pie charts, line graphs, etc.) Are the results significant? Are there tests I might use to tell me if the results are significant? Interpreting the Data & Drawing Conclusions:In this step, stand back from your data and look at it more critically. Decide cash advance loans what conclusions you can draw. Ask yourself: What alternative hypotheses might explain these results? Am I considering all relevant data, including extremes or “oddball data” in my analysis? How might my sampling or data collection methods have affected these results? What answer do my results provide to my original question? How do my results compare to what I expected to happen (my hypothesis)? What can I conclude from my results? How do my conclusions affect the community or “big picture” (implications)? Communicating the Results: Now it’s time to share your work. Ask yourself: Who is my audience? What is the best way to communicate to my audience? (e.g. written report, oral or poster presentation, video, etc.) What visual aids will help my audience clearly understand this research? Have I addressed all of the following components of my research in my communication?: • Introduction to question, purpose of this research and why it is interesting or matters • Description of methods used to collect data • Results • Conclusions • What questions are raised by my research? How do others respond to my work? IV.1.d) Scientific research methods dog training obedience of Modern Physics. If the research methods in General Physics are affected by some concepts, in Modern Physics the examples are more abundant, such as those that we will see from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. Numerous problems of the theory with the scientific method are thoroughly discussed in the on-line book on the Theory of Relativity, Elements, Kriticism (Trek) It is not that the Theory of Relativity of Einstein is false, but that it has some fairly correct and some very incorrect aspects, but above all else it is one of the theories that most unnaturally complicates the knowledge of reality and the progress of science. As was expected, the maximum exponent of the degradation of the scientific research methods is contained in the physics’ theories of the last generation that give the impression of struggling to see which says something more surprising. It is what happens when placing the usefulness as thse philosophical base of the scientific method. It is always encouraging when the scientific community declares the Theory of Relativity incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. In the context HCG Drops of the most famous physics theories of Modern Physics, some aspects related to the scientific research method will now be discussed. • Theory of General Relativity It is not easy to understand why a theory that unnaturally and quite radically breaks away from such basic concepts such as time and space came to be accepted. From the point of view of the scientific research method, it is revealing that by means of a relativistic philosophy one can come to generalizing the behavior of light on Earth to the whole universe. It is a behavior that is repeated in other branches of science – the human egocentrism is incredibly persistent. In a sense, what happened with Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity of Time in the beginning of the past century was the contrary to that with the theory of Natural Selection 50 years before. In Darwin’s theory, any aspect having to do with life, as a real entity with its very own will; it was ruled out reducing the whole problem of life to the product of a deterministic chance. With the theory of Retractable Awnings the relativity of time, perhaps due to the scientific community’s reaction or guilt complex in the face of the excessive indifference of science, a characteristic of life is unnaturally enforced onto one of the branches of science. On the one hand, it was appropriate for Lorentz’s mathematical formulas of relative positioning. On the other hand, since no one understood it, it looked very nice and, yet, it seemed to respond to something strange. Such as is the subjective variation of the perception of time in real life or something much more complex such as the possible real variations of subjective or internal time; which is dealt with by the online book Equation of Love. The Special Theory of Relativity, despite having permitted an important advance in science during the past century, it contains a series of objections, concepts or assumptions that are completely erroneous in my point of view. Beyond the relative relativities of time and space, due to being abstract concepts, we are told that time and space depend on each observer and speed. This implies that different times and spaces como bajar de peso exist simultaneously and in the same place. Moreover, we find that so much emphasis placed on the idea of the maximum speed of light it is even applied not only to physical but also to abstract speeds, such as those of separation or those with arbitrary reference systems. In addition, when applied to mental experiments, which are impossible to prove empirically, the result can be consistent with any philosophical theory. In short, quite a few strange things can occur and they occur as a result of an excessive philosophical and mathematical influence on physics. We come to the other extreme of introducing watches that, starting from the same measurement or state, in various circumstances they end up showing distinct times, and it is argued following the scientific research method that it is not due to a measurement error. How impressive and bold! Intuitive basic concepts are important and not complicated formulas, because if the research method abandons the first, the second gives us absolutely nothing, nothing that we can understand. That is precisely what I think has happened to Einstein’s Theory of Smokeless Cigarettes Relativity, it gets lost in formulas for some satisfactory results, which without doubt collect together real rules on nature’s behavior, but conceptually they are really quite mixed up due to the mathematical veil. The scientific research method actually should go on to be called the technical research method because it will create technical advances, but the conceptual knowledge is being diluted to the point that I would not call it scientific knowledge. Research Methods: The Practice of Science Key Concepts hide * The practice of science involves many possible pathways. The classic description of the scientific method as a linear or circular process does not adequately capture the dynamic yet rigorous nature of the practice. * Scientists use multiple research methods to gather data and develop hypotheses. These methods include experimentation, description, comparison, and modeling. * Scientific research methods are complementary; when multiple lines of evidence independently support one another, hypotheses are strengthened and confidence in scientific conclusions improves. When some people think of science, they think of formulas and facts to memorize. Many of us probably studied for a test in Daily deals a science class by memorizing the names of the four nucleotides in DNA (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine) or by practicing with one of Newton’s laws of motion, like f = ma (force equals mass times acceleration). While this knowledge is an important part of science, it is not all of science. In addition to a body of knowledge that includes formulas and facts, science is a practice by which we pursue answers to questions that can be approached scientifically. This practice is referred to collectively as scientific research and while the techniques that scientists use to conduct research may differ between disciplines, the underlying principles and objectives are similar. Whether you are talking about biology, chemistry, geology, physics, or any other scientific field, the body of knowledge that is built through these disciplines is based on the collection of data that is then analyzed and interpreted in light of other research findings. How do we know about adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine? These were not revealed by chance, but through the work of many scientists collecting data, evaluating the results, and Paleo Diet putting together a comprehensive theory that explained their observations. A brief history of scientific practice The recorded roots of formal scientific research lie in the collective work of a number of individuals in ancient Greek, Persian, Indian, Chinese, and European cultures, rather than from a single person or event. The Greek mathematician Pythagoras is regarded as the first person to promote a scientific hypothesis when, based on his descriptive study of the movement of stars in the sky in the 5th century BCE, he proposed that the Earth was round. The Indian mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata used descriptive records regarding the movement of objects in the night sky to propose in the 6th century CE that the Sun was the center of the solar system. In the 9th century, Chinese alchemists invented gunpowder while performing experiments attempting to make gold from other substances. And the Persian scientist Alhazen is credited with devising the concept of the scientific experiment while researching properties related to vision and light around 1000 CE. These and other events demonstrate that a scientific approach to addressing questions about ISO 9001 the natural world has long been present in many cultures. The roots of modern scientific research methods, however, are considered by many historians to lie in the Scientific Revolution that occurred in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Most historians cite the beginning of the Scientific Revolution as the publication of De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) in 1543 by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. Copernicus’s careful observation and description of the movement of planets in relation to the Earth led him to hypothesize that the Sun was the center of the solar system and the planets revolved around the Sun in progressively larger orbits in the following order: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn (Figure 1). Though Copernicus was not the first person to propose a heliocentric view of the solar system, his systematic gathering of data provided a rigorous argument that challenged the commonly held belief that the earth was the center of the universe. De revolutionibus orbium coelestium combined – Figure 1: The front cover and an inner page from De Revolutionibus drug rehab showing Copernicus’s hypothesis regarding the revolution of planets around the sun (from the 2nd edition, Basel, 1566). (from http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html) [Enlarge Image] enlarge image Figure 1: The front cover and an inner page from De Revolutionibus showing Copernicus’s hypothesis regarding the revolution of planets around the sun (from the 2nd edition, Basel, 1566). (from http://www.webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Copernicus.html) The Scientific Revolution was subsequently fueled by the work of Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, and others, who not only challenged the traditional geocentric view of the universe, but explicitly rejected the older philosophical approaches to natural science popularized by Aristotle. A key event marking the rejection of the philosophical method was the publication of Novum Organum: New Directions Concerning the Interpretation of Nature by Francis Bacon in 1620. Bacon was not a scientist, but rather an English philosopher and essayist, and Novum is a work on logic. In it, Bacon presented an inductive method of reasoning that he argued was superior to the philosophical approach of Aristotle. The Baconian method involved a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. Bacon’s work web marketing championed a method that was objective, logical and empirical, and provided a basis for the development of scientific research methodology. Newton – Sir Isaac Newton [Enlarge Image] enlarge image Sir Isaac Newton Bacon’s method of scientific reasoning was further refined by the publication of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) by the English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton in 1686. Principia established four rules (described in more detail here) that have become the basis of modern approaches to science. In brief, Newton’s rules proposed that the simplest explanation of natural phenomena is often the best, countering the practice that was common in his day of assigning complicated explanations derived from belief systems, the occult, and observations of natural events. And Principia maintained that special explanations of new data should not be used when a reasonable explanation already exists, specifically criticizing the tendency of many of Newton’s contemporaries to embellish the significance of their findings with exotic new explanations. Bacon and Newton laid the foundation that has been built upon by modern scientists and researchers in developing a rigorous methodology Wedding Favors for investigating natural phenomena. In particular, the English statisticians Karl Pearson and Ronald Fisher significantly refined scientific research in the 20th century by developing statistical techniques for data analysis and research design (see our Data: Statistics module). And the practice of science continues to evolve today, as new tools and technologies become available and our knowledge about the natural world grows. The practice of science is commonly misrepresented as a simple, four- or five-step path to answering a scientific question, called “The Scientific Method.” In reality, scientists rarely follow such a straightforward path through their research. Instead, scientific research includes many possible paths, not all of which lead to unequivocal answers. The real scientific method, or practice of science, is much more dynamic and interesting. More than one Scientific Method The typical presentation of the Scientific Method (Figure 2) suggests that scientific research follows a linear path, proceeding from a question through observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and finally producing results and a conclusion. However, scientific research does not always proceed linearly. For example, prior to the mid 1800s, a popular scientific hypothesis car loans held that maggots and microorganisms could be spontaneously generated from the inherent life-force that existed in some foods. Louis Pasteur doubted this hypothesis and this led him to conduct a series of experiments that would eventually disprove the theory of spontaneous generation (see our Research Methods: Experimentation module). Pasteur’s work would be difficult to characterize using figure 2 – while it did involve experimentation, he did not develop an hypothesis prior to his experiments, instead he was motivated to disprove an existing hypothesis. Or consider the work of Grove Karl Gilbert who conducted research on the Henry Mountains in Utah in the late 1800s (see our Research Methods: Description module). Gilbert was not drawn to the area by a pressing scientific question, but rather he was sent there by the U.S. government to explore the region. Further, Gilbert did not perform a single experiment in the Henry Mountains; his work was based solely on observation and description, yet no one would dispute that Gilbert was practicing science. The traditional and simplistic Scientific Method presented in figure 2 does not begin to reflect free ipad the richness or diversity of scientific research, let alone the diversity of scientists themselves. scientific method – Figure 2: The classic view of The Scientific Method is misleading in its representation of scientific practice. [Enlarge Image] enlarge image Figure 2: The classic view of The Scientific Method is misleading in its representation of scientific practice. Scientific research methods Scientific research is a robust and dynamic practice that employs multiple methods toward investigating phenomena, including experimentation, description, comparison, and modeling. Though these methods are described separately both here and in more detail in subsequent modules, many of these methods overlap or are used in combination. For example, when NASA scientists purposefully slammed a 370 kg spacecraft named Deep Impact into a passing comet in 2005, the study had some aspects of descriptive research and some aspects of experimental research (see our Research Methods: Experimentation module). Many scientific investigations largely employ one method, but different methods may be combined in a single study, or a single study may have characteristics of more than one method. The choice of which research method to use is bankruptcy information personal and depends on the experiences of the scientists conducting the research and the nature of the question they are seeking to address. Despite the overlap and interconnectedness of these research methods, it is useful to discuss them separately to understand the principal characteristics of each and the ways they can be used to investigate a question. Experimentation (see our Research Methods: Experimentation module): Experimental methods are used to investigate the relationship(s) between two or more variables when at least one of those variables can be intentionally controlled or manipulated. The resulting effect of that manipulation (often called a treatment) can then be measured on another variable or variables. The work of the French scientist Louis Pasteur is a classic example. Pasteur put soup broth in a series of flasks, some open to the atmosphere and others sealed. He then measured the effect that the flask type had on the appearance of microorganisms in the soup broth in an effort to study the source of those microorganisms. Description (see our Research Methods: Description module): Description is used to gather data regarding natural Minecraft Skins phenomena and natural relationships and includes observations and measurements of behaviors. A classic example of a descriptive study is Copernicus’s observations and sketches of the movement of planets in the sky in an effort to determine if the Earth or the Sun is the orbital center of those objects. Comparison (see our Research Methods: Comparison module): Comparison is used to determine and quantify relationships between two or more variables by observing different groups that either by choice or circumstance are exposed to different treatments. Examples of comparative research are the studies that were initiated in the 1950s to investigate the relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in which scientists compared individuals who had chosen to smoke of their own accord with non-smokers and correlated the decision to smoke (the treatment) with various health problems including lung cancer. Modeling (see our Research Methods: Modeling module): Both physical and computer-based models are built to mimic natural systems and then used to conduct experiments or make observations. Weather forecasts are an example of scientific modeling that we see every day, where data collected on accident claims temperature, wind speed, and direction are used in combination with known physics of atmospheric circulation to predict the path of storms and other weather patterns. These methods are interconnected and are often used in combination to fully understand complex phenomenon. Modeling and experimentation are ways of simplifying systems towards understanding causality and future events. However, both rely on assumptions and knowledge of existing systems that can be provided by descriptive studies or other experiments. Description and comparison are used to understand existing systems and are used to examine the application of experimental and modeling results in real-world systems. Results from descriptive and comparative studies are often used to confirm causal relationships identified by models and experiments. While some questions lend themselves to one or another strategy due to the scope or nature of the problem under investigation, most areas of scientific research employ all of these methods as a means of complementing one another towards clarifying a specific hypothesis, theory, or idea in science. Scientific theories are clarified and strengthened through the collection of data from more than one method that generate Local SEO multiple lines of evidence. Take, for example, the various research methods used to investigate what came to be known as the “ozone hole.” Research methods in practice: The investigation of stratospheric ozone depletion Early descriptive and comparative studies point to problem: In 1957, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) began a descriptive study of stratospheric ozone levels in an effort to better understand the role that ozone plays in absorbing solar energy (MacDowall & Sutcliffe, 1960). For the next 20 years, the BAS recorded ozone levels and observed seasonal shifts in ozone levels, which they attributed to natural fluctuations. In the mid-1970s, however, the BAS began to note a dramatic drop in ozone levels that they correlated with the change of seasons in the Antarctic. Within a decade, they noted that a seasonal “ozone hole” (Figure 3) had begun to appear over the South Pole (Farman et al., 1985). antarctic ozone hole – Figure 3: A picture of the Antarctic Ozone Hole in 2000, one of the largest holes on record. Ozone levels are given in Dobson Units, a measurement specific to stratospheric life insurance quotes ozone research and named in honor of G.M.B. Dobson, one of the first scientists to investigate atmospheric ozone, for more information see http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/teacher/basics/dobson.html. ©TOMS science team & and the Scientific Visualization Studio, NASA GSFC [Enlarge Image] enlarge image Figure 3: A picture of the Antarctic Ozone Hole in 2000, one of the largest holes on record. Ozone levels are given in Dobson Units, a measurement specific to stratospheric ozone research and named in honor of G.M.B. Dobson, one of the first scientists to investigate atmospheric ozone, for more information see http://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/teacher/basics/dobson.html. The development of new technology opens novel research paths: Concurrent with the early BAS studies, the British scientist James Lovelock was working on developing new technology for the detection of trace concentrations of gases and vapors in the atmosphere (Lovelock, 1960). One instrument that Lovelock invented was a sensitive electron capture detector that could quantify atmospheric levels of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). At the time, CFCs were widely used as refrigerants and as propellants in aerosol cans and they were thought to be stable in the atmosphere and thus harmless chemicals. In 1970, puppy training Lovelock began an observational study of atmospheric CFCs and found that the chemicals were indeed very stable and could be carried long distances from major urban air pollution sources by prevailing winds. Under the impression that CFCs were chemically inert, Lovelock proposed that the chemicals could be used as benign atmospheric tracers of large air mass movements (Lovelock, 1971). Modeling and experimental research are used to draw causal connections: In 1972, F. Sherwood Rowland, a chemist at the University of California at Irvine, attended a lecture on Lovelock’s work. Rowland became interested in CFCs and began studying the subject with a colleague at Irvine, Mario Molina. Molina and Rowland were familiar with modeling research by Paul Crutzen, a researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, that had previously shown that nitrogen oxides are involved in chemical reactions in the stratosphere and can influence upper atmosphere ozone levels (Crutzen, 1970). They were also familiar with modeling research by Harold Johnston, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at Berkeley, which suggested that nitrogen oxide emissions from supersonic jets could web design company reduce stratospheric ozone levels (Johnston, 1971). With these studies in mind, they consulted experimental research published by Michael Clyne and Ronald Walker, two British chemists, regarding the reaction rates of several chlorine-containing compounds (Clyne & Walker, 1973). In 1974, Molina and Rowland published a landmark study in the journal Nature in which they modeled chemical kinetics to show that CFCs were not completely inert, and that they could be transported to high altitudes where they would break apart in strong sunlight and release chlorine radicals (Molina & Rowland, 1974). Molina and Rowland’s model predicted that the chlorine radicals, which are reactive, would cause the destruction of significant amounts of ozone in the stratosphere. Descriptive and comparative research provide real-world confirmation: In 1976, a group of scientists led by Allan Lazrus at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado used balloons to carry instruments aloft that could sample air at high altitudes. In these samples, they were able to detect the presence of CFCs above the troposphere – confirming that CFCs did indeed reach the stratosphere and that once there, they Zenerx could decompose in light (Lazrus et al., 1976). Further research conducted using balloons and high-atmosphere aircraft in the 1980s confirmed that chlorine and chlorine oxide radicals contribute to the loss of ozone over the Antarctic (McElroy et. al., 1986). By the late 1980s, scientists began to examine the possible link between ozone loss and skin cancer because high levels of ultraviolet light, as would exist under an ozone hole, can cause skin cancer. In areas such as Southern Chile, where the Antarctic ozone hole overlaps with a populated land mass, a significant correlation was indeed found between the growing ozone hole and increasing rates of skin cancer (Abarca & Casiccia, 2002). As a result of this collection of diverse yet complimentary scientific evidence, the world community began to limit the use of CFCs and ratified the Montreal Protocol in 1988, which imposed strict international limits on CFC use. In 1995, Molina, Rowland, and Crutzen shared the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their research that contributed to our understanding of ozone chemistry. The ozone story (further detailed in the Research link associated with gold coast massage this module: The Ozone Depletion Phenomenon) highlights an important point: scientific research is multi-dimensional, non-linear, and often leads down unexpected pathways. James Lovelock had no intention of contributing to the ozone depletion story; his work was directed at quantifying atmospheric CFC levels. Although gaining an understanding of the ozone hole may appear as a linear progression of events when viewed in hindsight, this was not the case at the time. While each researcher or research team built on previous work, it is more accurate to portray the relationships between their studies as a web of networked events, not as a linear series. Lovelock’s work led Molina and Rowland to their ozone depletion models, but Lovelock’s work is also widely cited by researchers developing improved electron capture detectors. Molina and Rowland not only used Lovelock’s work, but they drew on the research of Crutzen, Johnston, Clyne, Walker and many others. Any single research advance was subsequently pursued in a number of different directions that complemented and reinforced one another – a common phenomenon in science. The entire ozone story required modeling, experiments, comparative ipad 3 research, and descriptive studies to develop a coherent theory about the role of ozone in the atmosphere, how we as humans are affecting it, and how we are also affected by it. The real practice of science Scientific research methods are part of the practice through which questions can be addressed scientifically. These methods all produce data that are subject to analysis and interpretation and lead to ideas in science such as hypotheses, theories, and laws. Scientific ideas are developed and disseminated through the literature where individuals and groups may debate the interpretations and significance of the results. Eventually, as multiple lines of evidence add weight to an idea it becomes an integral part of the body of knowledge that exists in science and feeds back into the research process. Figure 4 below provides a graphical overview of the materials we have developed to explain the real practice of science. POS diagram 2 – Figure 4: A graphical overview of our modules that detail how science is practiced – multiple research methods are influenced by many factors, and the process has feedback Phuket Thailand Forum and Hotels loops leading to new ideas and research studies. (To download the diagram in PDF format click here) [Enlarge Image] enlarge image Figure 4: A graphical overview of our modules that detail how science is practiced – multiple research methods are influenced by many factors, and the process has feedback loops leading to new ideas and research studies. (To download the diagram in PDF format click here) The Scientific Community: Scientists (see our Scientists and the Scientific Community module) draw on their background, experiences, and even prejudices in deciding on the types of questions they pursue and the research methods that they employ, and they are supported in their efforts by the scientific institutions and the community in which they work (see our Scientific Institutions and Societies module). Human nature makes it impossible for any scientist to be completely objective, but an important aspect of scientific research is that scientists are open to any potential result. Science emphasizes the use of multiple lines of evidence as a check on the objectivity of both individual scientists and the community at large. Research is repeated, skin care products multiple methods are used to investigate the same phenomenon, and scientists report these methods and their interpretations when publishing their work. Assuring the objectivity of data and interpretation is built into the culture of science. These common practices unite a community of science made up of individuals and institutions that are dedicated to advancing science. Rowland, Molina, Lovelock, and Crutzen each were guided by their personal interests and supported by their respective institutions. For example, in addition to his work with CFCs, James Lovelock is credited with proposing the Gaia hypothesis that all living and non-living things on the planet interact with one another much like a large, single organism. This perspective influenced his interest in looking at the movement of large air masses across the globe, work that was supported by funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Data: Science is a way of understanding the world around us that is founded on the principal of gathering and analyzing data (see our Data: Analysis and Interpretation module). In contrast, before the popularization of science, philosophical explanations of natural phenomena hair loss based on reasoning rather than data were common, and these led to a host of unsupported ideas, many of which have proven incorrect. For example, in addition to his ideas on vision, the Greek philosopher Empedocles also reasoned that because most animals are warm to the touch, they must contain fire inside of them (see our Matter: States of Matter module). In contrast, the initial conclusion of the presence of a hole in the stratospheric ozone layer was based on years of data collected by scientists at the British Antarctic Survey. The amount of uncertainty and error (see our Data: Uncertainty, Error, and Confidence module) associated with these data was critical to record as well – a small error in Dobson units would have made the hole seemingly disappear. Using statistical methods (see our Data: Statistics module) and data visualization techniques (see our Data: Visualizing Data module) to analyze data, the scientists at the BAS drew on their own experience and knowledge to interpret that data, demonstrating that the “hole” was more than a seasonal, natural shift in ozone levels. Ideas in car mats science: Scientific research contributes to the body of scientific knowledge, held in record in the scientific literature (see our Scientific Communication: Utilizing the Scientific Literature module) so that future scientists can learn from past work. The literature does not simply hold a record of all of the data that scientists have collected: it also includes scientists’ interpretations of that data. To express their ideas, scientists propose hypotheses to explain observations. For example, after observing, collecting, and interpreting data, Lovelock hypothesized that CFCs could be used by meteorologists as benign tracers of the movement of large air masses. While Lovelock was correct his prediction that CFCs could be used to trace air movement, later research showed that they are not benign. This hypothesis was just one piece of evidence that Molina and Rowland used to form their theory of ozone depletion. Scientific theories (see our Ideas in Science: Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws module) are ideas that have held up under scrutiny and are supported by multiple lines of evidence. The ozone depletion theory is based on results from all of the studies described cheap auto insurance above, not just Lovelock’s work. Unlike hypotheses, which can be tenuous in nature, theories rely on multiple lines of evidence and so are durable. Still, theories may change and be refined as new evidence and analyses come to light. For example, in 2007, a group of NASA scientists reported experimental results showing that chlorine peroxide, a compound formed when CFCs are transported to the stratosphere and which participates in the destruction of ozone, has a slower reaction rate in the presence of ultraviolet light than previously thought (Pope et al., 2007). The work by Pope and his colleagues does not dispute the theory of ozone destruction; rather, it does suggest that some modifications may be necessary in terms of the reaction rates used in atmospheric chemistry models. Despite the fact that different scientists use different methods, they can easily share results and communicate with one another because of the common language that has developed to present and interpret data and construct ideas. These shared characteristics allow studies as disparate as atmospheric chemistry, plant biology, and paleontology to be grouped together under the Guru Masterclass heading of “science” – although a practicing scientist in any one of those disciplines will require very specialized factual knowledge to conduct their research, the broad similarities in methodology allow that knowledge to be shared across many disciplines. Scientific Research Scientific research generally measures something, and often compares that measurement to something else. It is usually not possible or practical to perform the measurement on whole populations (for example, all women between the ages of 25 and 40). Therefore, samples are used to represent the whole population, and the measurements are made on those samples. The measurements are then analyzed, and conclusions are drawn. If the sampling was done appropriately, we can assume that what is true for the sample is true for the whole population. The Research Question Research questions are generated from different sources. An observation might lead a researcher to formulate a question, a review of what has been published on a given topic may point out an area that has not been investigated, or the results in one study may lead to further questions to be answered. For Digital Marketer Lab example, many health food supplements contain the ingredient XYZ. Some people think that XYZ has been causing weight gain in people regularly taking supplements containing XYZ. Dr. Smith wants to determine if rats fed XYZ gain more weight than rats eating their normal diet. Her research question is: “Will a diet containing XYZ make rats gain weight?” The Hypothesis The hypothesis is a prediction of the results of a study; it is a statement of the answer the researcher expects to find to the research question. Dr. Smith’s hypothesis is: “During the study, the rats that receive XYZ in their diet will gain more weight than rats not receiving XYZ.” Experimental Design In order to determine if her hypothesis is correct, Dr. Smith plans a study that will allow her to determine if the rats receiving the supplement gain weight. Additionally, she must collect data on the weight of rats that do not receive the supplement so she can compare the two groups. It is important that the two groups be as similar as possible at the beginning of the experiment, so Game Changer DNA that any difference in the weight at the end of the study will be due to the supplement and not to some other difference that existed between the two groups. Dr. Smith must also ensure that the groups are treated exactly the same way during the study, so that the only difference between them is the presence or absence of the supplement in their diet. The experimental design describes in detail what treatment will be used, how much, how often, and so forth. It also describes what, when, and how measurements will be taken. Common Scientific Research Terms & Concepts A variable is anything that can potentially affect the results of the experiment. For example, in Dr. Smith’s study, temperature is a variable that can affect the results. If some of the rats are kept in a room where the average temperature is 64 °F and others are kept in a room that averages 79 °F, the difference in temperature may alter the growth rates in ways that are unrelated to the dietary supplement under study. Other variables include the gender, age, Christmas Gifts strain, and health status of the animals. The independent variable is the variable that is manipulated by the investigator. In Dr. Smith’s experiment, the independent variable is the dietary supplement that will be added to the diet of the rats in the experimental group. The dependent variable is the variable that is measured during the study. Dr. Smith will weigh her rats at the end of the study. Weight is therefore the dependent variable in this study. In simple terms, the independent variable is what you think will cause the change that you described in your hypothesis and the dependent variable is what you measure in order to determine if a change has taken place. Variables are tested by using an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group is the group that receives the treatment (the dietary supplement XYZ in Dr. Smith’s study) in a scientific study. The control group is a group of animals that is as similar as possible to the experimental group, but that does not receive the treatment. In Dr. Smith’s study, the control group received How to make a website a routine diet without the XYZ supplement. How many animals are to be included in the study (the sample size) will depend on the type of study and the level of confidence that the investigator determines is needed. If you could include a very large number of rats in your experiment, you would be very confident that the results could be applied to the whole population of rats. Because of the 3Rs principle and other practical considerations, the investigator must determine the minimum number of animals needed to obtain results that one can have confidence in. For Dr. Smith’s study, an important question will be: “Is this a true representation of the effect of dietary supplement XYZ on rats?” You cannot answer “yes” to that question with 100% confidence unless a very large number of rats have been tested, which is not a practical alternative. In reality, the sample size is as small as possible while providing enough statistical power to obtain conclusive results. There are methods that can be used to determine what sample size should be used to provide statistical WOW Gold confidence in the interpretation of the results. To ensure that any effect demonstrated during the study is due to the independent variable and not other influences, it is important to make sure that the experimental group and the control group are as similar as possible at the beginning of the study. For example, in Dr. Smith’s experiment, all rats should be of similar weight at the beginning of the experiment. Other factors to be addressed are gender (males usually grow faster and larger than females), age (older rats don’t gain weight at the same rate as younger rats), and stock or strain (Sprague-Dawley rats generally grow larger and faster than Long-Evans rats, for example). If Dr. Smith intends to prove that the supplement is the reason that the rats in the experimental group gain more weight, then she must start with rats of the same weight, age, gender, and stock or strain. If these factors are not controlled, they could influence the results of the study. Science and Medical Research – What You Need to Become a Medical Researcher Medical researchers help ppi claims to pave the way for new sciences and technologies within the medical field. It’s because of their intensive studies that we have been able to learn more about the human body and how to detect and fight off a variety of illnesses and afflictions. Becoming a medical researcher takes years of education, but opens doors to a field that is cutting-edge and very exciting. If you feel that you meet the form of this type researcher (analytical, thrive on logic, and enjoy science), then you may want to consider earning a bachelor’s degree in a science that suits you: biology, chemistry, anatomy, pharmacology, genetics, or medical technology to name a few. Upon completing your bachelor’s degree, it’s suggested to gain further knowledge in the topic of study that you should enroll in a master’s or PhD program. The more professional degrees you hold, the more likely you’ll be selected for a medical research project. Finding a good graduate research program at a university or hospital will help get you started on research projects that could help you network with other research scientists same day loans and members of the school’s faculty and staff. This can help you with scholarships and grants to further your studies. You may also want to try and find a research position, or shadow a medical researcher within a hospital while still in school. Upon graduation, you will feel experienced in medical researching and can probably get a position within the hospital that you had already been spending so much time in. The Scientific Method of Research The scientific method of research is a process — a process that usually takes years or even decades to move an idea from hypothesis to theory. In recent years this process has accelerated, but the steps of the process are research doctrine in that studies are only considered scientifically valid if this method is followed. They are taught at all levels of education, from elementary school (I still have my daughter’s 5th grade poster presentation regarding which brand of dish soap produced more suds) to serving as the backbone of every Ph.D. candidate’s dissertation. The process is as follows: • A researcher garners an idea through review tinnitus treatment of the research literature to date, observations through clinical practice or even conjecture that seems to hold truth — e.g., Pavlov noting the behavior of his dogs at meal time or Newton being bonked on the head by a falling apple. • From this initial idea, a scientist develops a hypothesis –- a tentative explanation -– into what he or she believes to be the truth. • The next step involves the development of a method for testing this hypothesis. • The research is then conducted using the detailed method chosen and the data is then analyzed. • The findings are reported to the scientific community and future directions are determined. If the findings support the hypothesis, additional research will be conducted by other scientific teams towards replicating the same results, giving additional weight to the hypothesis, or demonstrating that the same results cannot be reproduced, indicating the hypothesis is not valid. This process may also uncover information that gives researchers new ideas, new hypotheses for research. • If, over time, many researchers following the exact same procedures and then testing with differing methods in differing circumstances Invisible Fence have achieved the same results, a hypothesis becomes a theory -– a formally accepted explanation with considerable facts to support why or how something happens. Over the couple of centuries the scientific method has been developed and applied, the process began as a ponderous, disorganized approach with gains in understanding and theory slow to evolve. However, as with any discipline, the work gained a collective consciousness, shed much of the weight of religious and political interference, developed specialties and organized review processes. This allowed research to become leaner and more efficient, gaining momentum with findings built on the work of predecessors. Gains in learning are now achieved in periods of years rather than decades. Consider the computer industry. Within my lifetime, the work now achieved by a calculator found in every high school student’s backpack previously took a room full of processing machines the size of refrigerators to crunch the same calculations. These leaps in understanding and technology and are now the reality of medical research as well. The Scientific Method – Research in Science Through Models and Experiments The Scientific Method teddy bears The term ‘science’ refers to the knowledge gained from observation and experimentation or the method by which we gain information. This knowledge is based on things that can be observed with the senses and, therefore, deals with the physical world and universe. When studying any given topic, it is often done with a scientific model which tries to explain the topic. Such a model is then tested through experimentation to see if the model is correct or incorrect. The process by which a scientific model is tested is the scientific method and is composed of five primary steps. Question The first step of the scientific method is asking a question. Generally, this question is about something a person has witnessed or experienced. Sometimes, the question is simply about a topic of interest. Research The second step of the scientific method is research. At this stage, the details of the question are defined. These details include the limits of the question, objects involved, and deciding how different aspects should be measured or represented. At this same time, already existing information on the topic hot tub covers is gathered along with any initial measurements or observations. More information gathered at this stage should produce a better model in the next stage. Hypothesis The third step of the scientific method is forming a hypothesis or model. The hypothesis is a tentative or suggested explanation of a topic. It is a general statement showing a possible pattern related to the topic of study. It is often expressed mathematically, but can also be shown with characteristics or by relating cause and effect relationships. These explanations can cover the range of a limited circumstance up to a universal statement for the topic. Prediction One of the most useful aspects of a hypothesis or science model is the ability to make predictions. Such a prediction is an educated guess at what will happen within the topic of study under certain circumstances. Often, the hypothesis will be a general statement while the prediction is more specific. It can be used to test and demonstrate whether the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Experiment The fourth step of the scientific method is the science experiment. The experiment discount furniture is the actual testing of the hypothesis and any predictions made from the hypothesis. Experiments are sometimes done in the laboratory, but sometimes require being done on location such as archeological excavations, or at specific times such as a lunar eclipse. Tests should be carefully designed to avoid mistakes, biases, or other conditions which might effect the outcome. Detailed records should be made about the experiment itself and any new information learned. Review and Improve The fifth step of the scientific method is review. At this time, the information gathered in the experiment is analyzed, interpreted, and applied to the hypothesis. Then, decisions can be made regarding how this information supports the hypothesis or shows something different. Typically, steps three, four, and five are repeated over and over as information from the experiments build and the hypothesis is refined to be more accurate and correct. Acceptance Before a hypothesis can become accepted as a theory or eventually a law, it must be widely accepted by scientists. This acceptance requires other scientists to reproduce either the same results or finding the hypothesis to SEO Services work in many other situations. Also, some form of peer review is often performed to search for errors in the experiment itself or to look for deliberately falsified results that protect from poor science or fraudulent information. Theories and Laws After repeated testing, if the hypothesis if found to be true in many situations, it becomes a theory which is widely accepted but still capable of being refined or changed. If it is found to be true in all situations, it becomes a scientific law. Misuse of Scientific Research in Health and Fitness Marketing It can be very difficult to separate quality sources of health and fitness information from misleading or untruthful information used for manipulation or product promotion. One of the primary reasons is because sources of quality information and sources of mediocre information both use scientific data to make their information come across as more factual or compelling. Scientific studies are very useful for supporting or refuting theories and claims, but they are also problematic, because data can be easily manipulated by anyone who wants to use the information to payday loans online their personal advantage. Data manipulation has become widespread in all fields, but it seems especially prevalent in health and fitness, because scientific claims are effective for promoting and selling products like exercise equipment, supplements, and diets programs. Even when scientific data is presented accurately, marketers still make misleading claims that are not supported by the studies they cite. Sometimes this is done on purpose, but it also happens because the people citing the studies frequently don’t understand the research or even basic scientific methodology. Surprisingly, this is more common than you might believe and it happens in all forms of media. As a result, scientific studies end up being used to promote ideas or products that are never supported or even discussed in the original research. Another problem is the person citing the scientific data may form his or her own conclusions from the data, even if they are in direct conflict with those of the original researchers. The reality is that whenever scientific data is presented, you will not necessarily have all the information you need. Of course, when companies use mortgage help scientific information in advertisements, they only show the information that supports their products or services and any conflicting data is withheld. People realize this happens, but seeing or hearing scientific data still influences the way we think about things, because scientific information is thought of as being more factual than other information. In many ways this is true, but only if the information is presented fairly and accurately. The simple truth is you can find scientific data to support practically any product or viewpoint, especially if you are not concerned about maintaining the integrity of the information. Some companies even hire researchers specifically to conduct studies that will support their products. In these situations, the researchers are motivated to create specific outcomes, so the research is biased and often inaccurate. Research is critical for the advancement of knowledge, but you really have to watch out for the questionable ways many health and fitness companies use this information. For example, advertisements often make statements like “the group using product A improved 3 times more than group using product B,” but the changes in iPhone Unlock both groups may be so small that they are inconsequential. Therefore, the fact that one group improved more than the other doesn’t suggest that product A is any better than product B, but the information is presented in a way that makes you think it is. This is just one of many examples of how scientific information is misused in health and fitness and it reinforces the point that you shouldn’t automatically accept scientific data as fact, especially when it is part of an advertisement or presentation. If you are interested in a product, it is best to look up some information on your own, ideally from sources other than the company selling the product. If other sources agree with the initial information, then you can be more confident that the science is sound and not just another case of data manipulation. Scientific Research Supports Biblical Scriptures Introduction Multiple discovered natural aspects are referenced throughout this paper from concrete sources which enhance the credibility of this research. Research sources include documentation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) which provides a LED grow lights solid reference for a popular theory that, although not yet proven to be a law, certainly raises eyebrows when considering scriptures that have been read for hundreds or even thousands of years. This intriguing comparison is noted throughout this paper in both the Old and New Testament books of the Bible. Scientific Research Supports Biblical References in Scripture about Nature Science and religion are often areas of intense debate because of dogmatic unwavering views from either side of intellectual discussions. Although there is often disagreement between scholars and well educated theologians regarding the validity of scriptures and why humans exist, this research exposes the possibility that both the knowledge of science and the understanding of scripture can reason together. This paper will not explore such controversial areas of faith and belief, but rather provides a fact based comparative view of scientific research and Biblical writings. Scientists and Religionists Can Agree Many respected writers and well-read publications have made a comparison between science and scripture. In an article written for USA Today titled “Creation ‘Science’ vs. Religious Attitudes” McCollister writes (1996), “most scientists auto insurance quotes would agree with pro-evolution religionists that, when properly understood, religion and science enhance and complement each other, but only if the means, aims, methods, and ground rules of each are clearly understood.” (McColloster, 1996). Ms. McColloster is a freelance journalist and editor of Voices for Evolution, her articles have been published by notable publishers such as the National Center for Science Education in addition to USA today. McColloster’s peer reviewed articles and view points are recognized as an authoritative unbiased source dedicated to education and science. When two areas of study provide information about similar subjects, it is logical to consider the material from both sources in a methodical comparison. Although science provides information as to how nature exists and functions, and the religious point of view is a theological answer as to why creation exists, valid scientific support can be recognized when the context of each source is considered. Ernest Lucas (2005) wrote in the journal of science and Christian belief that “there is no incompatibility between the biblically-based classical Christian doctrine of creation and modern science, provided one understands the online casino different levels at which science and theology work and the limitations this puts on each of them.” (Lucas, 2005, p. 140). In consideration of the credibility of Dr. Lucas’ publications, The Faraday Institute (2009) wrote that “Ernest Lucas has a MA in Chemistry from Oxford University and a PhD in Chemistry from Kent.” He then studied theology at Oxford and was ordained a Baptist, later obtaining a PhD in Oriental studies from Liverpool. “Lucas was Associate Director of the Institute for Contemporary Christianity in London before moving to Bristol Baptist College, where he is Vice-Principal and Tutor in Biblical Studies.” (The Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, 2009). Ernest’s diverse background in science and religion provides an expert reference from both an educated scientific and religious point of view. The levels of information and the methods by which scientific and Biblical knowledge is presented may often seem difficult to comprehend. In order to understand the rationalization for science and scripture coinciding together, it is necessary to begin with some questions. 1. Are there documented scientific facts of nature that support scriptural references to annuities “The Beginning” in the Bible? 2. Is there specific scientific knowledge of natural characteristics that are evident in the Bible regarding the areas of matter, time, the weather, the Earth’s geology and human biology? Science is a very diverse and in depth area of study and it would be seemingly impossible to cover every branch of research. As well, classic Biblical scriptures, some written hundreds of years ago, and others written thousands of years ago, all in different languages, make the Bible alone a vast area of study. In order to address this subject in a time efficient manner this research documents four basic areas of study. Research has revealed that scientific evidence supports Biblical accounts of the natural characteristics relative to the composition of the universe, the nature of time, the Earth, and human biology. The Beginning: The Big Bang Theory Supports the Beginning as Written in the Bible The first area of research to address will appropriately be “the beginning” of the universe and time itself. As each day passes the progression of time is evident all around, and the questions HCG Diet Reviews of when everything began, or has everything simply existed, has been a puzzle that scientists have researched for hundreds of years. Until recently there was only speculation and belief about a beginning of the universe. In 2003 NASA revealed an amazing discovery about the beginning of the universe. Dan Vergano (2003) wrote in an article for USA Today titled “NASA peers back to the beginning of the universe”. In this article NASA is noted for strengthening the Big Bang theory with a one hundred fifty million dollar project and Charles Bennett of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. is quoted stating “Astrophysicists will no longer have the freedom to invent whatever theory they want about the universe,” Bennett says, “We’ve ruled out a lot of the easy explanations.”(Vergano, 2003, para. 17). NASA is one of the world’s most recognized authorities on scientific exploration into the unknown. When comparing the science of a beginning to the Biblical account of a beginning, as written in Genesis “In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1 KJV), it is easy to understand that there is a complementary iphone correlation between the two areas of study. Scientific theory clearly supports the fact that there was a beginning of time and matter. When considering the theory of the Big Bang it is logical that in the progression of time and natural order that the Earth itself would begin to form. (The theory about how fast the formation of the Earth took place is not addressed in this research, as this would incorporate areas of faith and belief. The focus for this research is directly related to facts and science.) Once the Earth was formed it is safe to consider that an atmosphere and water developed and that certain areas of the Earth were covered in water and other areas were exposed as dry land. The scientific theory for a mass continent called Pangaea supports the distinct likelihood that a super continent existed. This one mass of land is theorized to have drifted apart according to the pre-existing theory of Continental Drift. However, in the past 30 years continental drift has been explained through the forces of plate tectonics which explain how the acid reflux diet plates of the Earth’s surface move (Kious, Tilling, 1996). The Beginning: The Theory of Pangea Supports the Formation of Land on the Earth in the Bible A very interesting correlation is able to be seen between the Biblical reference of the formation of a super continent and the supporting scientific evidence. As the scripture states in the book of Genesis “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (Genesis 1:6). In addition to this scripture we see also another scripture written which states “Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear” (Genesis 1:9). In these scriptures we see a reference to a firmament and that the waters are gathered together into one place. This scriptural reference clearly is supported by the scientific theory of a single land mass and a single body of water. The Beginning: Science States the Earth is Suspended by Gravity as Written in the Bible The forces of nature which formed the Earth are not only chiropractic marketing at work on the surface of the Earth, but the very planet itself is suspended by gravity, floating in the midst of space held by natural forces which are yet to be completely understood. According to the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs or IIP (2008) “in 1972, astronauts on board Apollo 17 captured the first full view of Earth suspended in space, exposed in full sunlight” (U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs, 2008). This wonderful picture clearly shows the Earth suspended in space as has been known and recognized for hundreds of years. This scientific evidence supports the Biblical reference to the gravitational forces of “nothing” suspending the Earth in the book of Job (Job 26:7). It is quite interesting that this scientific evidence supports scriptures which clearly indicate that the Earth is suspended by forces which are not seen even with today’s modern advances in technology. The Beginning: Gravitational Forces Affect Celestial Objects in the Bible The gravitational forces suspending the earth in the picture taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts affect all celestial free credit score bodies throughout the universe. The scientific documentation of planetary gravitational forces is noted in the writings of astrophysicists. In a book titled “A Year in the Life of the Universe: A Seasonal Guide to Viewing the Cosmos”, the authors write about the gravitationally bound Pleiades star cluster. Gendler & Ferris(2006) state that “the Pleiades will probably travel through space as a bound cluster for another 250 million years” (Gendler, Ferris, 2006). These stars are able to be seen by the unaided eye. In the ancient Biblical time of Job the forces of gravity of the star constellation was used in a rhetorical question. The Bible states that God asks Job, “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31). It is obvious that binding the influences is referring to the gravitational forces which hold the stars together. The fact that the stars are bound together by gravity is a documented scientific fact which supports the natural occurrence of gravity documented in the Bible. Relevant scientific research supports the facts which have been mentioned so far, places to eat and this documented research is shown to compliment and correlate with scripture which address very similar areas of science and knowledge. Scientific support for the beginning of time and matter are not the only occurrences which have been noted in research. Specific examples of natural facts in the areas regarding the end of matter, time zones, weather, and geology are also noted and provide further affirmation which anchors the fact that science and scripture can and do complement each other in many relevant fields of study. The Nature of Matter: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Supports the Destiny of the Universe in the Bible Mankind has theorized and speculated about the end of the world and the universe as long as documented history can record. This question has fascinated everyone from common men and women to distinguished scholars. As science has progressed, the understanding of matter and the makeup of matter has advanced as well. When a scientific theory is tested over and over again, it is proven to be law; a scientific law typically does not change. The Second Law of diets that work Thermodynamics is a law which addresses the statistics of the order of molecules which make up matter. In his paper titled “Things Fall Apart: An Introduction to Entropy”, Gary Felder (2001) uses the example of a dandelion and spores. The statistical probability of dandelion spores being blown from the stem is much more likely than the dandelion spores re-attaching themselves to the stem from which they grew (Felder, 2001). This is an example of the statistical law of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. Research and statistics show that in every area of matter which includes everything on the Earth, the Earth itself and the entire universe is gradually falling apart through the progression of time. Although you cannot see the hands on a clock move they are still moving and this is simply how the Earth is breaking down as time progresses. The second law of thermodynamics supports scriptures that were written in the Bible concerning the end of all creation. In the book of Psalms the scripture states “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and Carpet Cleaning London the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment;” (Psalm 102:25, 26). In this scripture we see the words “perish” and “wax old” used describing the Earth itself and the heavens describing the universe and stars. Dr. Felder (2001) describes the end of all matter in the following statements “So far as we know entropy will continue increasing until someday the universe is filled with nothing but weak, uniform radiation.” He also states that “this scenario, known as “the heat death of the universe,” referencing that there will be a period when all matter experiences this ultimate progression of scientific law (Felder, 2001). Again this research supports additional scriptures one of which reads “the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” (2 Peter 3:10). The Nature of Time: The Science of Day and Night During one Time Period Supports Scripture Although the progression of entropy may be very slow in the short life spans Online Payday Loans that humans live, the twenty four hour cycle of night and day is evident. Modern science and the ability to travel great distances has allowed people to go from time zone to time zone in a matter of hours. The Lunar and Planetary Institute (2004) explains how the Earth experiences this cycle because of the rotation of the Earth on its axis. It is interesting to note that New Testament scripture is supported by this ever occurring fact of science. In the book of Saint Luke, Jesus makes a statement about people sleeping in a bed and others working in a field; inferring that it will be night one place and day in another when He returns (Luke 17:34-36). This inference makes an interesting correlation between the science of time zones and scripture. The Nature Weather: The Science of Jet Streams Supports Biblical Scripture In 1920 a discovery was made which drastically affected the study of weather patterns and air travel in modern avionics. This discovery is thought to have been made by meteorologist named Wasaburo Ooishi. His discovery was made possible Iphone 4 Cases by the use of a weather balloon which revealed the pattern of wind known today as jet streams (Sapojnikova, 2010), The air currents which travel at very high altitudes (some as high as 52,000 feet) help to increase the ground speed of jet airliners thus saving fuel and time. The jet streams are today well known facts of science that determine many factors of the Earths changing weather. Amazingly the circuits of the wind are noted in scripture which was written by the very wise King Solomon. In the book of Ecclesiastes it is written that “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.” (Ecclesiastes 1:6). It is well known science that supports the fact that wind currents move toward different southern, northern and other points on the map, it is also known that these powerful wind currents whirl about and around the Earth returning to the same place as they circle the planet. The Earth’s Geology: Oceanic Geological Science Supports Biblical References From the hcg diet heights of the clouds to the very depths of the sea, sciences supporting biblical scriptures are recognized in nearly every area of study. A question was posed to Job by God saying “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?” (Job 38:16). From a theological perspective this was asked of Job in order for Job to realize his limited ability, to know or be able to do as much as God, even though Job was a good man. But from a scientific perspective research has shown that scientific discoveries were made in 1977 that support the science of this scripture. Watson (1999) from the U.S. Geological Survey writes that in 1977 “scientists discovered hot springs at a depth of 2.5 km, on the Galapagos Rift” (Watson, 1999). Although there had been pre-existing theories about these springs since the 1970′s they had not been captured by a camera. So far scientific research has supported the creation of time and the universe; as well as theories, facts and laws that have correlated with the principles of gravity affecting the Earth itself and stars. In addition research has shown specific examples of the destiny of useful matter, the affirmation of time zones, jet streams and oceanic springs. All of these areas of science specifically focus on the Earth and other natural surroundings. It is therefore necessary to explore the biological science and the interrelation of biblical scripture regarding the human body itself. Human Biology: Recent Scientific Theories Support the Account of a Type of Adam in the Bible Recently DNA research has revealed an interesting theory regarding the early origins of mankind. This DNA research has led to the close consideration that early mankind developed from one man or one small group of people. In a National Geographic article Hillary Mayell (2003) writes “geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.” (Hillary, 2003). Albeit Dr. Wells theory is still a theory which requires much more additional research in order to become fact, this modern discovery reveals an amazing basic support for the oldest Biblical accounts for mankind’s origin. As stated in the beginning of the book of Genesis, God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then in the New Testament a scripture describes “The first man Adam was made a living soul” (1 Corinthians 15:45). Still research continues to reveal if not only an inference, a direct resemblance to this carefully studied theory of the origin of mankind. Human Biology: Science Supports an Admonishment to Immoral Sexual Behavior in the Bible The creation and growth of man will likely always be a subject of intense study that may never be completely understood. However, one area of research that has grown to epidemic proportions in modern science and medical study is the analysis of sexually transmitted diseases. In the British Medical Journal an article written by Ebrahim, McKenna & Marks (2005) provides statistics which expose that in 1990 thirty thousand deaths were attributed to sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is not only attributed to death but to other detrimental consequences as stated in the article “Sexual behaviour leads to a variety of harmful consequences, such as unintended pregnancy, social stigma, infections, and chronic psychological or pathological sequelae.” (Ebrahim, McKenna & Marks, 2005). Clearly the medical evidence shown throughout modern history underscores the fact that immoral or unrestrained sexual behavior is detrimental to the human body. Biblical scriptures are clearly supported by this fact which is identified by the Apostle Paul as he admonishes the church of Corinth. The New Testament scripture declares “he that commiteth fornicationsinneth against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18). Fornication is the practice of immoral sexual activity outside of wedlock. It is well known and documented that sexual promiscuity leads to many of the diseases that modern day society faces in monumental proportions. Conclusion In light of the research presented in this paper it is evident that science supports Biblical scriptures and in return that Biblical scriptures reference documented scientific facts of nature. These written references affirm the many areas of study in which science references subjects that have been written and discussed in scriptures for hundreds of years. The scientific facts have been presented in these various areas, subsequent scriptures are then documented which are obviously supported by modern evidence. Although much discussion and many debates have taken place about the validity of scripture in the context of known scientific facts, many respected scholars such as those from the Institute for Creation Research (2010) agree that there are valid and considerable comparisons in the studies of both. When the application of science and scripture are properly addressed accounting for the time period in which they were documented, the authors of the content, and the method in how they both are compared, it becomes apparent how these areas of study compliment one another. The focus and research of this paper is to establish the fact that modern science supports many Biblical scriptures. One must realize the limitations of the compatibility of science and scripture, yet at the same time research clearly presents facts. In this research science supports a theory of a beginning in time and space, and then the scripture is presented which represents the beginning of time and space. The scientific evidence for the forces and laws of gravity are presented, subsequently the scriptural references are recorded which reference these areas. Research presents the second law of thermodynamics and then similar accounts of the Biblical record for the end of all matter are exhibited. Not only is scientific evidence presented which clarifies support for the Earth, space and time but research also supports the biology of the human body itself. Many references throughout the various fields of science are written about in the Biblical scriptures, several of which are not mentioned in this document. In the clear viewpoint of this research it is logical to ascertain that modern scientific studies document references of the natural characteristics written in the Bible regarding the composition of the universe, the nature of time, the Earth, and human biology. Material Science Research About to Get a Big Budget Boost The future of technology, society and our civilization will be about material sciences. Everything we think we know about building materials, plastics, steel, concrete and the high-tech materials that are used to build aircraft, military equipment and space ships is about to change. Things will never be the same again. We will soon have lighter cars, transportation items and trucks. Why is all this coming at us so fast? Well, the world of nano-tech is here and soon we will have materials 100 times lighter than steal and 500 times stronger. They will be thinner, conduct electricity and flexible or rigid at will. Other properties might be the ability to remain invisible one minute and at a command opaque, perhaps shape-shifting or reconfiguring as well. Think it is not so? Then you have not been reading the latest material science journals. Material Science Research Facilities are about to get a big budget boost to create new aircraft for military, UAVs and submarines. Anything will be possible; submarines that fly, personal private air-vehicles and aircraft that double as space ships. And things will never be the same again, and we are already watching the next generation of airliners and private business jets emerge as this article is being written. New materials mean that a Space Lunar Colony is truly feasible and once this new era of material sciences takes off, it will increase so rapidly that all you thought you knew just a decade the prior will be completely irrelevant. Why? Well, because AI or Artificial Intelligent computers will be creating new molecules using super computers with enormous processing speeds. In fact, the computers will be designing our future, computers built and inspired by those who are not limited by their dreams or imagination. Think on this. We understand the world by asking questions and searching for answers. Our construction of reality depends on the nature of our inquiry. Until the sixteenth century, human inquiry was primarily based on introspection. The way to know things was to turn inward and use logic to seek the truth. This paradigm had endured for a millennium and was a well-established conceptual framework for understanding the world. The seeker of knowledge was an integral part of the inquiry process. A profound change occurred during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, Newton, and Locke presented new ways of examining nature. Our method of understanding the world came to rely on measurement and quantification. Mathematics replaced introspection as the key to supreme truths. The Scientific Revolution was born. Objectivity became a critical component of the new scientific method. The investigator was an observer, rather than a participant in the inquiry process. A mechanistic view of the universe evolved. We believed that we could understand the whole by performing an examination of the individual parts. Experimentation and deduction became the tools of the scholar. For two hundred years, the new paradigm slowly evolved to become part of the reality framework of society. The Age of Enlightenment had arrived. Scientific research methodology was very successful at explaining natural phenomena. It provided a systematic way of knowing. Western philosophers embraced this new structure of inquiry. Eastern philosophy continued to stress the importance of the one seeking knowledge. By the beginning of the twentieth century, a complete schism had occurred. Western and Eastern philosophies were mutually exclusive and incompatible. Then something remarkable happened. Einstein’s proposed that the observer was not separate from the phenomena being studied. Indeed, his theory of relativity actually stressed the role of the observer. Quantum mechanics carried this a step further and stated that the act of observation could change the thing being observed. The researcher was not simply an observer, but in fact, was an integral part of the process. In physics, Western and Eastern philosophies have met. This idea has not been incorporated into the standard social science research model, and today’s social science community see themselves as objective observers of the phenomena being studied. However, “it is an established principle of measurement that instruments react with the things they measure.” (Spector, 1981, p. 25) The concept of instrument reactivity states that an instrument itself can disturb the thing being measured. Problem Recognition & Definition All research begins with a question. Intellectual curiosity is often the foundation for scholarly inquiry. Some questions are not testable. The classic philosophical example is to ask, “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” While the question might elicit profound and thoughtful revelations, it clearly cannot be tested with an empirical experiment. Prior to Descartes, this is precisely the kind of question that would engage the minds of learned men. Their answers came from within. The modern scientific method precludes asking questions that cannot be empirically tested. If the angels cannot be observed or detected, the question is considered inappropriate for scholarly research. A paradigm is maintained as much by the process of formulating questions as it is by the answers to those questions. By excluding certain types of questions, we limit the scope of our thinking. It is interesting to note, however, that modern physicists have began to ask the same kinds of questions posed by the Eastern philosophers. “Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if nobody is there to hear it?” This seemingly trivial question is at the heart of the observer/observed dichotomy. In fact, quantum mechanics predicts that this kind of question cannot be answered with complete certainty. It is the beginning of a new paradigm. Defining the goals and objectives of a research project is one of the most important steps in the research process. Clearly stated goals keep a research project focused. The process of goal definition usually begins by writing down the broad and general goals of the study. As the process continues, the goals become more clearly defined and the research issues are narrowed. Exploratory research (e.g., literature reviews, talking to people, and focus groups) goes hand-in-hand with the goal clarification process. The literature review is especially important because it obviates the need to reinvent the wheel for every new research question. More importantly, it gives researchers the opportunity to build on each others work. The research question itself can be stated as a hypothesis. A hypothesis is simply the investigator’s belief about a problem. Typically, a researcher formulates an opinion during the literature review process. The process of reviewing other scholar’s work often clarifies the theoretical issues associated with the research question. It also can help to elucidate the significance of the issues to the research community. The hypothesis is converted into a null hypothesis in order to make it testable. “The only way to test a hypothesis is to eliminate alternatives of the hypothesis.” (Anderson, 1966, p.9) Statistical techniques will enable us to reject a null hypothesis, but they do not provide us with a way to accept a hypothesis. Therefore, all hypothesis testing is indirect. Creating the Research Design Defining a research problem provides a format for further investigation. A well-defined problem points to a method of investigation. There is no one best method of research for all situations. Rather, there are a wide variety of techniques for the researcher to choose from. Often, the selection of a technique involves a series of trade-offs. For example, there is often a trade-off between cost and the quality of information obtained. Time constraints sometimes force a trade-off with the overall research design. Budget and time constraints must always be considered as part of the design process (Walonick, 1993). Many authors have categorized research design as either descriptive or causal. Descriptive studies are meant to answer the questions of who, what, where, when and how. Causal studies are undertaken to determine how one variable affects another. McDaniel and Gates (1991) state that the two characteristics that define causality are temporal sequence and concomitant variation. The word causal may be a misnomer. The mere existence of a temporal relationship between two variables does not prove or even imply that A causes B. It is never possible to prove causality. At best, we can theorize about causality based on the relationship between two or more variables, however, this is prone to misinterpretation. Personal bias can lead to totally erroneous statements. For example, Blacks often score lower on I.Q. scores than their White counterparts. It would be irresponsible to conclude that ethnicity causes high or low I.Q. scores. In social science research, making false assumptions about causality can delude the researcher into ignoring other (more important) variables. There are three basic methods of research: 1) survey, 2) observation, and 3) experiment (McDaniel and Gates, 1991). Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. The survey is the most common method of gathering information in the social sciences. It can be a face-to-face interview, telephone, or mail survey. A personal interview is one of the best methods obtaining personal, detailed, or in-depth information. It usually involves a lengthy questionnaire that the interviewer fills out while asking questions. It allows for extensive probing by the interviewer and gives respondents the ability to elaborate their answers. Telephone interviews are similar to face-to-face interviews. They are more efficient in terms of time and cost, however, they are limited in the amount of in-depth probing that can be accomplished, and the amount of time that can be allocated to the interview. A mail survey is generally the most cost effective interview method. The researcher can obtain opinions, but trying to meaningfully probe opinions is very difficult. Observation research monitors respondents’ actions without directly interacting with them. It has been used for many years by A.C. Nielsen to monitor television viewing habits. Psychologists often use one-way mirrors to study behavior. Social scientists often study societal and group behaviors by simply observing them. The fastest growing form of observation research has been made possible by the bar code scanners at cash registers, where purchasing habits of consumers can now be automatically monitored and summarized. In an experiment, the investigator changes one or more variables over the course of the research. When all other variables are held constant (except the one being manipulated), changes in the dependent variable can be explained by the change in the independent variable. It is usually very difficult to control all the variables in the environment. Therefore, experiments are generally restricted to laboratory models where the investigator has more control over all the variables. Sampling It is incumbent on the researcher to clearly define the target population. There are no strict rules to follow, and the researcher must rely on logic and judgment. The population is defined in keeping with the objectives of the study. Sometimes, the entire population will be sufficiently small, and the researcher can include the entire population in the study. This type of research is called a census study because data is gathered on every member of the population. Usually, the population is too large for the researcher to attempt to survey all of its members. A small, but carefully chosen sample can be used to represent the population. The sample reflects the characteristics of the population from which it is drawn. Sampling methods are classified as either probability or nonprobability. In probability samples, each member of the population has a known probability of being selected. Probability methods include random sampling, systematic sampling, and stratified sampling. In nonprobability sampling, members are selected from the population in some nonrandom manner. These include convenience sampling, judgment sampling, quota sampling, and snowball sampling. The other common form of nonprobability sampling occurs by accident when the researcher inadvertently introduces nonrandomness into the sample selection process. The advantage of probability sampling is that sampling error can be calculated. Sampling error is the degree to which a sample might differ from the population. When inferring to the population, results are reported plus or minus the sampling error. In nonprobability sampling, the degree to which the sample differs from the population remains unknown. (McDaniel and Gates, 1991) Random sampling is the purest form of probability sampling. Each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. When there are very large populations, it is often difficult or impossible to identify every member of the population, so the pool of available subjects becomes biased. Random sampling is frequently used to select a specified number of records from a computer file. Systematic sampling is often used instead of random sampling. It is also called an Nth name selection technique. After the required sample size has been calculated, every Nth record is selected from a list of population members. As long as the list does not contain any hidden order, this sampling method is as good as the random sampling method. Its only advantage over the random sampling technique is simplicity. Stratified sampling is commonly used probability method that is superior to random sampling because it reduces sampling error. A stratum is a subset of the population that share at least one common characteristic. The researcher first identifies the relevant stratums and their actual representation in the population. Random sampling is then used to select subjects for each stratum until the number of subjects in that stratum is proportional to its frequency in the population. Convenience sampling is used in exploratory research where the researcher is interested in getting an inexpensive approximation of the truth. As the name implies, the sample is selected because they are convenient. This nonprobability method is often used during preliminary research efforts to get a gross estimate of the results, without incurring the cost or time required to select a random sample. Judgment sampling is a common nonprobability method. The researcher selects the sample based on judgment. This is usually and extension of convenience sampling. For example, a researcher may decide to draw the entire sample from one “representative” city, even though the population includes all cities. When using this method, the researcher must be confident that the chosen sample is truly representative of the entire population. Quota sampling is the nonprobability equivalent of stratified sampling. Like stratified sampling, the researcher first identifies the stratums and their proportions as they are represented in the population. Then convenience or judgment sampling is used to select the required number of subjects from each stratum. This differs from stratified sampling, where the stratums are filled by random sampling. Snowball sampling is a special nonprobability method used when the desired sample characteristic is rare. It may be extremely difficult or cost prohibitive to locate respondents in these situations. Snowball sampling relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects. While this technique can dramatically lower search costs, it comes at the expense of introducing bias because the technique itself reduces the likelihood that the sample will represent a good cross section from the population. Data Collection There are very few hard and fast rules to define the task of data collection. Each research project uses a data collection technique appropriate to the particular research methodology. The two primary goals for both quantitative and qualitative studies are to maximize response and maximize accuracy. When using an outside data collection service, researchers often validate the data collection process by contacting a percentage of the respondents to verify that they were actually interviewed. Data editing and cleaning involves the process of checking for inadvertent errors in the data. This usually entails using a computer to check for out-of-bounds data. Quantitative studies employ deductive logic, where the researcher starts with a hypothesis, and then collects data to confirm or refute the hypothesis. Qualitative studies use inductive logic, where the researcher first designs a study and then develops a hypothesis or theory to explain the results of the analysis. Quantitative analysis is generally fast and inexpensive. A wide assortment of statistical techniques are available to the researcher. Computer software is readily available to provide both basic and advanced multivariate analysis. The researcher simply follows the preplanned analysis process, without making subjective decisions about the data. For this reason, quantitative studies are usually easier to execute than qualitative studies. Qualitative studies nearly always involve in-person interviews, and are therefore very labor intensive and costly. They rely heavily on a researcher’s ability to exclude personal biases. The interpretation of qualitative data is often highly subjective, and different researchers can reach different conclusions from the same data. However, the goal of qualitative research is to develop a hypothesis–not to test one. Qualitative studies have merit in that they provide broad, general theories that can be examined in future research. Data Analysis Modern computer software has made the analysis of quantitative data a very easy task. It is no longer incumbent on the researcher to know the formulas needed to calculate the desired statistics. However, this does not obviate the need for the researcher to understand the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the statistical techniques. Each statistical technique has its own assumptions and limitations. Considering the ease in which computers can calculate complex statistical problems, the danger is that the researcher might be unaware of the assumptions and limitations in the use and interpretation of a statistic. Reporting the Results The most important consideration in preparing any research report is the nature of the audience. The purpose is to communicate information, and therefore, the report should be prepared specifically for the readers of the report. Sometimes the format for the report will be defined for the researcher (e.g., a dissertation), while other times, the researcher will have complete latitude regarding the structure of the report. At a minimum, the report should contain an abstract, problem statement, methods section, results section, discussion of the results, and a list of references (Anderson, 1966). Validity and Reliability Validity refers to the accuracy or truthfulness of a measurement. Are we measuring what we think we are? “Validity itself is a simple concept, but the determination of the validity of a measure is elusive” (Spector, 1981, p. 14). Face validity is based solely on the judgment of the researcher. Each question is scrutinized and modified until the researcher is satisfied that it is an accurate measure of the desired construct. The determination of face validity is based on the subjective opinion of the researcher. Content validity is similar to face validity in that it relies on the judgment of the researcher. However, where face validity only evaluates the individual items on an instrument, content validity goes further in that it attempts to determine if an instrument provides adequate coverage of a topic. Expert opinions, literature searches, and pretest open-ended questions help to establish content validity. Criterion-related validity can be either predictive or concurrent. When a dependent/independent relationship has been established between two or more variables, criterion-related validity can be assessed. A mathematical model is developed to be able to predict the dependent variable from the independent variable(s). Predictive validity refers to the ability of an independent variable (or group of variables) to predict a future value of the dependent variable. Concurrent validity is concerned with the relationship between two or more variables at the same point in time. Construct validity refers to the theoretical foundations underlying a particular scale or measurement. It looks at the underlying theories or constructs that explain a phenomena. This is also quite subjective and depends heavily on the understanding, opinions, and biases of the researcher. Reliability is synonymous with repeatability. A measurement that yields consistent results over time is said to be reliable. When a measurement is prone to random error, it lacks reliability. The reliability of an instrument places an upper limit on its validity (Spector, 1981). A measurement that lacks reliability will necessarily be invalid. There are three basic methods to test reliability : test-retest, equivalent form, and internal consistency. A test-retest measure of reliability can be obtained by administering the same instrument to the same group of people at two different points in time. The degree to which both administrations are in agreement is a measure of the reliability of the instrument. This technique for assessing reliability suffers two possible drawbacks. First, a person may have changed between the first and second measurement. Second, the initial administration of an instrument might in itself induce a person to answer differently on the second administration. The second method of determining reliability is called the equivalent-form technique. The researcher creates two different instruments designed to measure identical constructs. The degree of correlation between the instruments is a measure of equivalent-form reliability. The difficulty in using this method is that it may be very difficult (and/or prohibitively expensive) to create a totally equivalent instrument. The most popular methods of estimating reliability use measures of internal consistency. When an instrument includes a series of questions designed to examine the same construct, the questions can be arbitrarily split into two groups. The correlation between the two subsets of questions is called the split-half reliability. The problem is that this measure of reliability changes depending on how the questions are split. A better statistic, known as Chronbach’s alpha (1951), is based on the mean (absolute value) interitem correlation for all possible variable pairs. It provides a conservative estimate of reliability, and generally represents “the lower bound to the reliability of an unweighted scale of items” (Carmines and Zeller, p. 45). For dichotomous nominal data, the KR-20 (Kuder-Richardson, 1937) is used instead of Chronbach’s alpha (McDaniel and Gates, 1991). Variability and Error Most research is an attempt to understand and explain variability. When a measurement lacks variability, no statistical tests can be (or need be) performed. Variability refers to the dispersion of scores. Ideally, when a researcher finds differences between respondents, they are due to true difference on the variable being measured. However, the combination of systematic and random errors can dilute the accuracy of a measurement. Systematic error is introduced through a constant bias in a measurement. It can usually be traced to a fault in the sampling procedure or in the design of a questionnaire. Random error does not occur in any consistent pattern, and it is not controllable by the researcher. Summary Scientific research involves the formulation and testing of one or more hypotheses. A hypothesis cannot be proved directly, so a null hypothesis is established to give the researcher an indirect method of testing a theory. Sampling is necessary when the population is too large, or when the researcher is unable to investigate all members of the target group. Random and systematic sampling are the best methods because they guarantee that each member of the population will have an known non-zero chance of being selected. The mathematical reliability (repeatability) of a measurement, or group of measurements, can be calculated, however, validity can only be implied by the data, and it is not directly verifiable. Social science research is generally an attempt to explain or understand the variability in a group of people.