By projecting back in time the physical, geological processes they can investiga
ID: 3492480 • Letter: B
Question
By projecting back in time the physical, geological processes they can investigate operating in the present, geologists can reconstruct how ancient landforms, like the spectacular spires of Bryce Canyon, developed through time. (K. Feder) some interpretations while refining others. We constantly rethink our explanations. In this way, little by little, bit by bit, we expand our knowledge and understanding. Through this kind of careful observation and objective research and experimentation, we can indeed know things. So, our assumptions are simple enough. We accept the existence of a reality independent of our own minds, and we accept that this reality works according to a series of unchanging patterns, rules, or laws. We also claim that we can recognize and understand these laws, or at least recognize the patterns that result from these universal rules. The question remains then: How do we do science-how do we explore the nature of the universe, whether our interest is planets, stars, atoms, or human prehistory? We can know things by employing the rules of logic and rational thought. Scientists-archaeologists or otherwise-usually work through a combination of the logical processes known as induction and deduction. The dictionary definition of induction is "arguing from specifics to generalities, " whereas deduction is defined as the reverse, arguing from generalities to specifics. What is essential to good science is objective, unbiased observations of planets, molecules, rock formations, archaeological sites, and so on. Often, on the basis of these specific observations, we induce explanations called hypotheses for how these things work. For example, we may study the planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars (each one presents specific bits of information). We then induce general rules about how we think these inner planets in our solar system were formed. Or we might study a whole series of different kinds of molecules and then induce general rules about how molecules interact chemically. We may study different rock formations and make general conclusions about their origin. We can study a number of specific prehistoric sites and make generalizations about how cultures evolved. Notice that we cannot directly observe planets forming, the rules of molecular interaction, rocks being made, or prehistoric cultures evolving. Instead, we are inducing general conclusions and principles concerning our data that follow logically from what we have been able to observe. This process of induction, though crucial to science, is not enough. We need to go beyond our induced hypotheses by testing them. If our induced hypotheses are indeed valid-that is, if they really represent the actual rules according to which some aspect of the universe (planets, molecules, rocks, ancient societies) works-they should be able to hold up under the rigors of scientific hypothesis testing. Observation and the suggestion of hypotheses, therefore, are only the first steps in a scientific investigation. In science we always need to go beyond observation and hypothesizing. We need to set up a series of "if ... then" statements: "if" our hypothesis is true, "then" the following deduced "facts" will also be true. Our results are not always precise and clear-cut, especially in a science like archaeology, but this much should be clear-scientists are not just out there collecting a bunch of interesting facts. Facts are always collected within the context of trying to explain something or of trying to test a hypothesis. Here's an example of how this process works. In nineteenth-century Europe, the hospital could be a very dangerous place for a woman about to give birth. Death rates in some so-called lying-in wards were horrifically high, the result of what became known as "childbed fever." A seemingly healthy young woman would arrive at the hospital with an unremarkable pregnancy, experience a normal labor, and give birth to a healthy baby. Over the course of the hours and days following birth, however, she might exhibit a rapid pulse, high fever, distended and painful abdomen, foul discharge, and delirium-and then would die.Explanation / Answer
The article talks about the 'workings of science'.
The article succinctly defines how science works. The logic and rational thought is an integral part of scientific temper and thought. The science is said to be an objective unbiased study of events, objects and other such things. In the article, it has been explained that hypotheses are formulated after careful observation of events, which are then proved or disproved after collection and analysis of relevant data.
The data gathered and the results obtained are then generalized. The generalizability of results is dependent upon how reliable the data is. Deduction and induction are the two methods that are employed for explaining things. The initial steps in scientific research may thus be enumerated as- identification of research problem, statement of objectives, formulation of hypotheses, review of literature, data gathering and interpretation of results. Finally, the obtained results are checked for their internal and external validity.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.