Scientific Methods and The Nature of Science Lecture Reflection

As this was the second lecture I had become more open minded to the course after being persuaded to give it my best attempt, albeit my lack of experience in the field of study and my inability to see its relevance to my pursuit of a law degree. My attention was caught at the very beginning through a recap of the nature of science and technology. It solidified my understanding of Science as understanding oriented which deals with the natural world and Technology as an application based concept which relates to the man-made world. This assisted greatly in clarifying any doubts after the first lecture.

A sense of great interest overwhelmed me as the “what do you see exercise” appeared on the screen, I began to question myself after being able to see several different scenarios in the same picture. This asked the question of the difference between observation and perception. It allowed me to understand why humans don’t only see with their eyes but with what is in their minds. This came as a surprise to me as it opened my eyes to a new perspective. In future studies I will have to be mindful of how I view and judge certain aspects. The lecture then went on to describe and explain the different scientific methods used by scientists, the Inductive Approach, Deductive Approach and Hypothetico-Deductive Approach.

I clearly understood that Inductive reasoning uses a premise or fact to create larger theories based on generalisations without having tested the theory. I was careful to note that this theory may be refuted by even one exception to the law, which disproves it. Based on my understanding, Inductive reasoning is a useful tool to create scientific theories with little or no experimentation involved. However, it may prove controversial in some aspects where the law does not hold. Deductive reasoning was also described as a type of valid reasoning which begins with a premise in an attempt to discover a new piece of information or prove a theory. It was said to be held in high regard as the “standard” approach as it involved a testable hypothesis and experimentation. Through the use of examples I clearly understood how Deductive reasoning is used to discover new “fullproof” facts. It occurred to me that deductive reasoning is used by everyone on a daily basis without any knowledge it is being used.

As such, for future reference I plan to use it more frequently in making informed decisions as it is a useful tool. I also noted not to condemn Inductive reasoning as both techniques are useful in certain circumstances. I agreed that Hypothetico-Deductive reasoning is as the ideal research method as it involves the use of hypothesis testing through a series of steps which are equally important to determine if the hypothesis is true. I observed that it involves the most experimentation and research to come up with an answer as to whether the identified hypothesis is correct or not. This method I believe is the most important and best method to use. However, it was repeated that the other two methods are not to be condemned. I must analyse the problem and hypothesis which requires solving to determine the most appropriate method to use.

In the third lecture we continued our study of scientific methods and the nature of science. Firstly, a brief review of the research methods outlined in the second lecture was done. This helped me to further understand the concepts of Inductive, Deductive and Hypothetico-deductive reasoning. At this point, I had a comprehensive knowledge of these concepts. It was stressed that the scientific method was empirical as it relies on evidence and keeps objectivity (Kothari, 2004). As the lecturer stressed these key characteristics I felt a sense of misunderstanding as to the meaning of these terms. I then gathered it implies the scientific method is verified through evidence in observation or experience. I noted these aspects must be present when I next conduct an experiment in my future studies. The history of scientific methods was then taught as a general overview of several philosophers was given. I believed this was done to show how science changes over time and who assisted humanity to discover the methods currently used. I found this quite an intriguing topic.

A comparison between the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle was done much to my amazement. I learnt an array of new facts which I consider excellent common knowledge to have. Plato believed all knowledge could be acquired through reasoning or inductive methods, a method outdated in present times. Aristotle contrasted him using deductive methods and empirical reasoning through experimentation. This showed a great rivalry between two brilliant scientists, something which individuals can strongly relate to. Further to these scientists, an overview on William Harvey, a scientist who studied blood circulation and the heart was done. I learned Harvey was revolutionary in his field of study, causing a paradigm shift by proving other theories wrong. This caused a paradigm shift of my own, as I believed science was an exact study which was not prone to change. I must remember this for my future research purposes that everything is subject to change with new and improved theories which refute the present theory. Learning how William Harvey outmatched several other scientists in that field of study allowed me to appreciate the work done by these scientists who have assisted the current generation immensely.

Another scientist known as Galileo was described as the one who rebuked Aristotle’s theory of falling objects. This further cements how science is susceptible to change over time with new and improved theories arising. Afterwards a brief look at the differences between theories and laws was done. Using Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation, the concept of a theory was explained. It was stated that a theory was a general statement explaining experimental observations. I carefully noted theories are acquired by scientific methods, experimentation and observation. In contrast, a scientific law was said to be different from a theory. I realized laws are what scientists expect to happen every time. It is an observed pattern which is widely accepted to be true. I made note of theory being an explanation for an occurrence while law was an empirical statement of generality. A key similarity, however, was both are based on hypotheses.

To conclude the lecture a brief presentation on scientific models was done. I concluded a model was an imaginative representation of a real object or system. The different categories of models were displayed as I comprehensively grasped the differences between physical, mathematical and conceptual models. I was humbled to learn of hurricane tracking as a type of scientific model and encouraged to use models as a useful tool in my future studies. I evaluated models as an excellent tool to represent reality, explain and test predictions.