Last but not the least, the examination of how theory research and practice interact within the context and potentially is indeed interesting and helpful. This is a training of systematically understanding researches thereby gaining some ideas of how a good research should be structured and kept consistent. With regards to the limitation of space, the discussions are surely not sufficient enough to get clear every points. For an example, the details of how to perform the suggested mixed-methods way of research. In future, efforts should be made by me to provide better theory-grounded profound arguments.
The method by which we gather this knowledge and the ability of the knowledge to accurately explain why things work the ways they do are equally important. Moreover, with science we are trying to bring an order into, a chaotic world. With giving things names we take the mystery out of it and it makes it less scary for us. Also, this gained knowledge needs to be continually compared to the real world to test and improve its accuracy and demonstrate its explanatory power (Popper 1988). I agree with Popper (1988), who stated that only those propositions that research may prove false should be considered as scientific (the principle of falsification).
Therefore in conclusion “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” is an accurate statement as shown from the areas of knowledge history and natural sciences. However, emphasis on the word ‘sometimes’ must be given as history shows us that it will only be discarded if wrong or can be manipulated for personal gain. While the natural science show us knowledge must tested thoroughly before being discarded as all knowledge is useful.
Before a resolution or explanation of a concrete problem, a research problem has to be established. Certainly, unraveling and explaining the problem of the research does not necessarily resolve or answer the problem. A research problem does not necessarily change something in the real world once the problem is solved; instead, resolving the research problem permits the researcher to discover more ab... ... middle of paper ... ... can be removed, in turn, conserving time. Conclusion There are various approaches, which can be valuable for researchers to utilize when deciding an effective research problem. The failure of a researcher to be precise in the description of the problem statement can have damaging outcomes in the understanding of the research.
To identify these obstacles Staman and Slob (2012) start their analysis by reviewing the classical model of the interaction between science and politics, which states that scientists seek the neutral truth and policy makers seek for ways to turn ideas into effective policies. The underlying assumption in this way of thinking is that effective policies can be achieved with studied facts, thus based on scientific knowledge. Staman and Slob (2012) identified several problems that arise with this classical model from which three are summarized below and further referred to as knowledge claims (kc). kc1. If policymakers desire to apply evidence-based policy there is a need for true facts.
Both science and history are subject to changes in knowledge for facts may sometimes be discarded, built upon, or distorted to prove an opinion or theory. This does not necessarily mean that knowledge is always discarded and forgotten, but simply acknowledges that these areas of knowledge continue to build on the previous facts or opinions. Since both areas approach knowledge though different perspectives, the question that emerges is to what extent is society justified in establishing or discarding that which is defined as common knowledge. Beginning with the natural sciences, knowledge is derived though objective means using the scientific method to inquire about the world. The scientific method deals with experimentation, and repetition of these experiments to ensure consistency before accumulating data.
In this sense, the inductive reasoning used in the scientific method is justified, as our understanding of scientific truths and all scientific advancement relies on its existence. While Popper’s qualms about inductive reasoning appear to be justified, it nonetheless proves itself to be the less-problematic approach to scientific learning. This approach need not be flawless for it to be functional in its practical application in the world, and for us to justify its continued use. It simply needs to allow progress, which Popper’s overly-cautious deductive approach evidentially does not allow, at least not on a comparable scale.
Science and its connection to the outside world- that is, the social and political spheres -has several important implications. The values that society places upon various issues is one of the biggest factors in deciding what scientific research will pursue. Some, like Thomas Kuhn, have argued for the value-free ideal within science, and promoted the function of autonomous science. Others, such as Heather Douglas, put forth that science can (and should) be directly influenced by the values society while still maintaining its status as a source of new, reliable knowledge. These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct.
This would be detrimental when attempting to understand development and social change. Historical analysis plays a vital role in understanding development and social change. This argument has been substantiated with academic scholars and an example of historical analysis relating to modernization. As with all social theories, when considering modernization theory, it is vital to also incorporate comprehensive historical analysis to provide context and to rationalise discrepancies and anomalies. Alone, modernization theory is not enough to contextualise development and social change; however, when combined with historical analysis it can provide further depth and understanding into development and social change.
It also encourages group efforts and critical investigation of the natural world through scientific argumentation and reasoning. Peer review makes scientific claims to pass under scrutiny and, as a result, helps to root confidence in the claim. In general, epistemic knowledge is key to determine the role of scientific knowledge in identifying and addressing societal and technological issues. In conclusion, epistemic knowledge is important because it is fundamental to how we think. Without some means of understanding how we acquire knowledge, how we rely upon our senses, and how we develop concepts in our minds, we have no coherent path for our thinking.