: When we, in everyday language, say that we believe in something, we may mean many things that we support a cause, that we have faith in an idea, or that we think something is accurate. The word is often associated with ideas about which we have strong convictions, regardless of the evidence for or against them. This can generate confusion when a scientist claims to "believe in" a scientific hypothesis or theory. In fact, the scientist probably means that he or she "" the idea in other words, that he or she thinks the scientific idea is the most accurate available based on a critical evaluation of the evidence. Scientific ideas should always be accepted or rejected based on the evidence for or against them not based on faith, dogma, or personal conviction.
CORRECTION: Scientists do strive to be unbiased as they consider different scientific ideas, but scientists are people too. They have different personal beliefs and goals and may favor different hypotheses for different reasons. Individual scientists may not be completely objective, but science can overcome this hurdle through the action of the scientific community, which scrutinizes scientific work and helps balance biases. To learn more, visit in our section on the social side of science.
Psychology 138 Lab 11: Hypothesis Testing - My Illinois …
CORRECTION: Perhaps because the last step of the Scientific Method is usually "draw a conclusion," it's easy to imagine that studies that don't reach a clear conclusion must not be scientific or important. In fact, scientific studies don't reach "firm" conclusions. Scientific articles usually end with a discussion of the limitations of the tests performed and the alternative hypotheses that might account for the phenomenon. That's the nature of scientific knowledge it's inherently tentative and could be overturned if new evidence, new interpretations, or a better explanation come along. In science, studies that carefully analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the test performed and of the different alternative explanations are particularly valuable since they encourage others to more thoroughly scrutinize the ideas and evidence and to develop new ways to test the ideas. To learn more about publishing and scrutiny in science, visit our discussion of .
Abnormal Psychology - ib psych notes
Bottom-up analyses are different because they are less reliant on theories to generate the initial ideas. Bottom-up analyses construct models of how people respond to randomly selected combinations of traits and use those models to reveal the different combinations of traits that underpin different social judgments. Research demonstrating cultural differences in the information people use to judge emotions is a good example of this approach.
ib psych notes - all the psychology notes you will ever need
CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof real, absolute proof is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing .
this will save your life, trust me ..
CORRECTION: Because science relies on observation and because the process of science is unfamiliar to many, it may seem as though scientists build knowledge directly through observation. Observation critical in science, but scientists often make about what those observations mean. Observations are part of a complex process that involves coming up with ideas about how the natural world works and seeing if observations back those explanations up. Learning about the inner workings of the natural world is less like reading a book and more like writing a non-fiction book trying out different ideas, rephrasing, running drafts by other people, and modifying text in order to present the clearest and most accurate explanations for what we observe in the natural world. To learn more about how scientific knowledge is built, visit our section .
Tips and strategies for teaching the nature and process …
Top-down analyses of faces are ones where a researcher takes an idea from scientific theories, uses that idea to generate a hypothesis about how a particular facial cue might influence social judgments, and then designs an experiment to test that hypothesis. Work linking masculine facial traits to perceptions of aggressiveness is a good example of the utility of that approach; researchers took ideas from work on non-human animals suggesting males in many species displaying more masculine characteristics had higher social rank and designed experiments to test for similar effects in human social judgments.