I have argued that this problem casts doubt on the logic of falsification and the crucial experiment because the outcome of an experiment is not predicted on the basis of a single hypothesis since auxiliary assumptions are involved as well. To overcome this, a scientist can make adjustments to the experiment without completely abandoning his theory. To correctly estimate the agreement of a physical theory with evidence, it is not enough to be a skillful experimenter. One must also be an impartial and faithful judge in determining an anomaly in his theory and making the decision to accept non-supporting evidence.
Secondly Hollander and Willis claim that the experiments do not identify whether the subjects are complying because they judge that it’s not worth appearing to be different, or because the actually start to believe that the groups judgement is correct. Hollander and Willis also claim that the studies cannot show whether those who do not conform do so because they are independant thinkers or because they are anti-conformists. And Lastly, they claim that the studies seem to assume that independance has to be good and conformity has to be bad. However conformity is often benificial. Sherif and Asch have each conducted fairly artificial laboritory experiments which showed that about 30% of responses can be explained by the need or desire of the subjects to conform.
However, Kuhn explains that sometimes in experiments, humans mess up because no one can be can have the capability of being perfect all of the time. A scientist may instruct an experiment very carefully but there is typically a margin of error that is impossible to prevent. But how do we distinguish anomalies from counterexamples? The problem is being able to see when the theory has disagreed with the experiment enough or that we just made the wrong calibrations. Popper gives us no answer to this question while Kuhn explains it very thoroughly.
In the most general sense, string theory is in principle falsifiable. In practice however, this is not the case. When notable experiments have failed it has been regularly claimed that it is not due to the invalidity of the theory, but rather due to the current technological constraints. What follows is whether the experiments are failing as a result of being incorrect, or because our capacity to run the tests is not great enough. Though, even when the tests did ‘fail’ the direct implication is that the failure is a result of a failure of the technology, rather than the theory.
If a therapy or treatment cannot be tested, it is not credible. Many pseudoscience therapies claim to have proven and verifiable results. However, the claims are not founded on experiment based evidence (Fin, Bothe and Bramlett, 2005, p. 173). In their second claim, Fin, Bothe and Bramlett (2005) address the adaptability of a treatment method when conflicting evidence is presented (p. 173) . This claim, much like the first claim, deals with the evaluation of the therapy.
This research study shows us that leading questions can effect the accuracy of memory. An additional explanation is that the shape of question actually alters the participant’s memory account of the accident, which guides them to give a higher or lower estimate. One criticism of this study is that it is not true to life. A laboratory experiment may not signify real life, as people may not take the experiment seriously and/or they are not emotionally aroused as they would ... ... middle of paper ... ... for witnesses to accurately recall a person or event. Geiselman et al.
They must make sure that they subject will be fine after the experiment, or its considered an act of injustice. Another reason people don’t approve of deception is the possibility of corruption. If researchers start using deception all the time, people will start to lose their trust in them. If people start to lose trust in researchers, the number of participants can decrease substantially. This argument is not very convincing.
The product Q-Ray also violates the correlation does not mean causation concept. In order to find high correlation between two occurrences, a proper experiment should be executed. A proper experiment would include an experimental group who wore the bracelets, and a control group who were not given the bracelet. The company, however, makes claims that cannot be verified. The consumer should never trust a company that eludes to correlation meaning
Among them are experimental and subject bias. Experimental bias concerns anything that misconstrues the experimenter's comprehension of the relationship between the dependent and independent variable (Feldman, 1999). Subject bias is the tendency of the subject to behave atypically. The double-blind procedure evades experimental and subject bias as the experimenter evaluates results unbiased as the experimenter is uninformed about whether the subject has received the actual treatment or the placebo and the subject will behave normally as they do not know if they have received the actual treatment or the pseudotreatment, the placebo. Therefore, the results and any distinctions among the control and experimental groups are clearly based on the independent variable and has to be the effect of the treatment.
Since such arbitrary factors influence and individual’s reasoning it should not be thought that the human judgement is not trustworthy. Therefore, a human’s rationality lies within the trustworthiness of the judgement and since it cannot be trusted humans are irrational. While the thought that humans ought to be able to recognize this shortcoming exists, it does not matter because the individual functions on a dysfunctional system. This idea is known as the shoddy software hypothesis, which focuses on the idea that the average mind works with certain heuristics, but not with others. The mind functions in a certain way to produce rational decisions, however it is extremely limited with this hypothesis.