I’m confused. Person is writing a paper and looking for supporting evidence based on what they have observed. They are not running a study.
Science starts with what you have observed and you make a guess based on that information, and then you try to find out if you’re right.
For example, I see a big yellow orb in the sky a lot of the time. Why? Does the earth rotate about a big yellow orb? Does a big yellow orb rotate about the earth?
Being wrong about your guess does not negate that which you have observed. You might learn why you observe what you have observed but it does not take away from the fact that yes you have indeed observed something. This person has made observations and is trying to justify that using existing research. Again, they are not running a study. You don’t know if existing literature points to the persons hypothesis being wrong. You don’t know if it’s something that hasn’t really been studied so there isn’t that much evidence right now and person is trying to get someone to look into an issue.
This GREATLY depends on how one frames their own experiences, which we also do not get much information on from OP’s post. If someone is merely seeking validation for their conclusions which they claim their experience points at conclusively, then they are FAR from the scientific method.
In fact, I’d argue the wording does point to such logistic fallacies. They cite their own experiences, not something more removed from subjective experience.
“The obvious issues I deal with…” are BY DEFINITION subjective. This person, and you yourself, are failing to understand the scientific method.
I’m trained in physical sciences. I studied at university and then worked ~8 years for a research department and at one point learned 2D NMR and how to run molecular simulations on a supercomputer. I’m well aware of the challenges of winning grants against colleagues and getting papers published and surviving peer review and then hoping your work gets noticed outside your weird little niche.
My buddy is a schoolteacher. He can run circles around me with arithmetic and explain the scientific method in rap format. Kids eat it up! But he’s probably never done a gradient integral (not that I remember how either) or contributed to a collegiate press release.
We’re both ostensibly working with the same core principles but the reality ends up quite different. Context matters.
No. She’s a teacher, and teachers of all people should be expected to know how the scientific method works.
I’m confused. Person is writing a paper and looking for supporting evidence based on what they have observed. They are not running a study.
Science starts with what you have observed and you make a guess based on that information, and then you try to find out if you’re right.
For example, I see a big yellow orb in the sky a lot of the time. Why? Does the earth rotate about a big yellow orb? Does a big yellow orb rotate about the earth?
Being wrong about your guess does not negate that which you have observed. You might learn why you observe what you have observed but it does not take away from the fact that yes you have indeed observed something. This person has made observations and is trying to justify that using existing research. Again, they are not running a study. You don’t know if existing literature points to the persons hypothesis being wrong. You don’t know if it’s something that hasn’t really been studied so there isn’t that much evidence right now and person is trying to get someone to look into an issue.
deleted by creator
This GREATLY depends on how one frames their own experiences, which we also do not get much information on from OP’s post. If someone is merely seeking validation for their conclusions which they claim their experience points at conclusively, then they are FAR from the scientific method.
In fact, I’d argue the wording does point to such logistic fallacies. They cite their own experiences, not something more removed from subjective experience.
“The obvious issues I deal with…” are BY DEFINITION subjective. This person, and you yourself, are failing to understand the scientific method.
There are different levels of understanding.
I’m trained in physical sciences. I studied at university and then worked ~8 years for a research department and at one point learned 2D NMR and how to run molecular simulations on a supercomputer. I’m well aware of the challenges of winning grants against colleagues and getting papers published and surviving peer review and then hoping your work gets noticed outside your weird little niche.
My buddy is a schoolteacher. He can run circles around me with arithmetic and explain the scientific method in rap format. Kids eat it up! But he’s probably never done a gradient integral (not that I remember how either) or contributed to a collegiate press release.
We’re both ostensibly working with the same core principles but the reality ends up quite different. Context matters.
You are demonstrating that you don’t understand how the scientific method works.
Truly apt username, btw.