Hallmark Of Science Research Articles

The epistemological limitations of scientific inquiry: Crucial experiments revisited

Scientific knowledge is the outcome of research and experimentation. How this goal is to be achieved is and has been a topic of much debate over the centuries. In the 17th century, the English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (1561-1626) regarded science as the systematic collecting and gathering of facts. Upon this view, nature tells us what the facts are on the assumption that we learn how to listen properly to nature. We design experiments and run them, and the verdict is to nature. Thus, “crucial” experimentation is the hallmark of science. A crucial experiment is an experiment that unambiguously favours one or the other of two competing hypotheses under test, no matter the outcome.
 
 At some stage in the development of science, it was believed that such crucial experiments can be designed. However, some philosophers deny that they are possible in some domains of scientific inquiry, while others deny that they are possible in any domain of scientific inquiry. In this context, the French physicist, historian and philosopher of science Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) argued that in physics, crucial experiments are not possible. While the American philosopher W. V. Quine (1908-2000) adopted the radical view that crucial experiments are forthcoming in no domain of scientific inquiry. In the philosophy of science, these two views are joined in what came to be known the Quine-Duhem Thesis.
 
 This study examines the controversial Quine-Duhem Thesis and discusses whether, or not, it is considered a threat to the rationality of science. The fundamental features of rationality in science are to be addressed. It is concluded that the Quine-Duhem thesis does not make an epistemological point and Quinean holism does not destroy the objectivity of science.

Overall assessment for selected markers from high-throughput data.

Reproducibility, a hallmark of science, is typically assessed in validation studies. We focus on high-throughput studies where a large number of biomarkers is measured in a training study, but only a subset of the most significant findings is selected and re-tested in a validation study. Our aim is to get the statistical measures of overall assessment for the selected markers, by integrating the information in both the training and validation studies. Naive statistical measures, such as the combined -value by conventional meta-analysis, that ignore the non-random selection are clearly biased, producing over-optimistic significance. We use the false-discovery rate (FDR) concept to develop a selection-adjusted FDR (sFDR) as an overall assessment measure. We describe the link between the overall assessment and other concepts such as replicability and meta-analysis. Some simulation studies and two real metabolomic datasets are considered to illustrate the application of sFDR in high-throughput data analyses.

Leonardo da Vinci and the search for order in neuroscience

Finding order in disorder is a hallmark of science and art. In the time of Leonardo da Vinci, the schism between science and art had yet to arise. In fact, Leonardo freely used scientific methods for his art and vice versa; for example, when he used his observations of turbulent, whirling water to guide his artistic imagination. Half a millennium later, a cornerstone of modern biology is the continuing search for order in dynamic processes. In neuroscience, the search has focussed on understanding complex spacetime brain dynamics. Recently, turbulence has been shown to be a guiding principle underlying the necessary information processing, supporting Leonardo's search for order in disorder. Here, we argue that Leonardo's seminal insights have ongoing relevance for modern neuroscience.

Infant and Child Development: A journal for open, transparent and inclusive science from prenatal through emerging adulthood

<i>Infant and Child Development</i>: A journal for open, transparent and inclusive science from prenatal through emerging adulthood

On code sharing and model documentation of published individual and agent-based models

Being able to replicate research results is the hallmark of science. Replication of research findings using computational models should, in principle, be possible. In this manuscript, we assess code sharing and model documentation practices of 7500 publications about individual-based and agent-based models. The code availability increased over the years, up to 18% in 2018.Model documentation does not include all the elements that could improve the transparency of the models, such as mathematical equations, flow charts, and pseudocode. We find that articles with equations and flow charts being cited more among other model papers, probably because the model documentation is more transparent.The practices of code sharing improve slowly over time, partly due to the emergence of more public repositories and archives, and code availability requirements by journals and sponsors. However, a significant change in norms and habits need to happen before computational modeling becomes a reproducible science.

Open Science and Its Enemies: Challenges for a Sustainable Science–Society Social Contract

Science as a social institution has evolved as the most powerful, highly influential, and sought out institution after the conflicts between science and religion following Galileo. Knowledge as a public good, scientific peer review of science, the prominence of open publications, and the emphasis on professional recognition and scientific autonomy have been the hallmark of science in the past three centuries. According to this scientific spirit, the scientific social system and society formed a unique social contract. This social contract drew considerable institutional and state legitimacy for the openness and public good of science in the service of state and society, all through the post-war period. Openness and public good of science are recognized and legitimized by the scientific community and science agencies at the global level. This paradigm of open science, in varying forms and manifestations, contributed to the progress of systematic knowledge at the service of humankind over the last three centuries. Entering the third decade of the 21st century, the social contract between science and society is undergoing major changes. In fact, the whole paradigm of open science and its social contract is being challenged by various “enemies” or adversaries such as (a) market-based privatized commercial science, (b) industry 4.0 advanced technologies, and (c) a “new iron curtain” on the free flow of science data and information. What is at stake? Are there major changes? Is the very social institution of science transforming? What impact will this have on our contemporary and future sustainable society? These are some important issues that will be addressed in this article.

Improving Psychological Science through Transparency and Openness: An Overview.

The ability to independently verify and replicate observations made by other researchers is a hallmark of science. In this article, we provide an overview of recent discussions concerning replicability and best practices in mainstream psychology with an emphasis on the practical benefists to both researchers and the field as a whole. We first review challenges individual researchers face in producing research that is both publishable and reliable. We then suggest methods for producing more accurate research claims, such as transparently disclosing how results were obtained and analyzed, preregistering analysis plans, and publicly posting original data and materials. We also discuss ongoing changes at the institutional level to incentivize stronger research. These include officially recognizing open science practices at the journal level, disconnecting the publication decision from the results of a study, training students to conduct replications, and publishing replications. We conclude that these open science practices afford exciting low-cost opportunities to improve the quality of psychological science.

Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management.

Artelle et al. (2018) conclude that "hallmarks of science" are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of "hallmarks of science," confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

Unscientific hunt management plans

Applied Ecology Governments often claim, and society often believes, that science guides policy for natural resource management, including hunting policies across the United States and Canada. But no standard exists for what science-based management entails. Artelle et al. identified four fundamental hallmarks of science for natural resource management. Fewer than half were present in most hunt management plans surveyed across U.S. states and Canadian provinces and territories. Broader application of a science-based framework could improve policies and mitigate risks. Sci. Adv. 10.1126/sciadv.aao0167 (2018).

Replication in Criminology and the Social Sciences

Replication is a hallmark of science. In recent years, some medical sciences and behavioral sciences struggled with what came to be known as replication crises. As a field, criminology has yet to address formally the threats to our evidence base that might be posed by large-scale and systematic replication attempts, although it is likely we would face challenges similar to those experienced by other disciplines. In this review, we outline the basics of replication, summarize reproducibility problems found in other fields, undertake an original analysis of the amount and nature of replication studies appearing in criminology journals, and consider how criminology can begin to assess more formally the robustness of our knowledge through encouraging a culture of replication.

Doing Science: Peer reviewing

External peer review is a hallmark of science. “Published in a peer-reviewed journal” is a sign of quality, meaning that the work has been scrutinised by knowledgeable and independent peers. Moreover, peer review also serves the purpose of improving the work after the authors have done their best and, thus, being a reviewer carries a responsibility. However, it comes with little reward; reviewing is usually done without financial compensation and often outside of work hours. But reviewing is rewarding in itself! Besides being pro bono , it exposes you, as a reviewer, to novel findings and adds a new perspective to your own research and scientific writing. And you can add “Peer reviewer for Journal of X” to your CV. This Doing Science article will deal with peer reviewing of journal articles and conference abstracts. For those of you familiar with the series, the format will be slightly different. Different people tend to have rather personal approaches to reviewing, and rather than generic tips, this article is built around an interview with a very experienced reviewer, and our own personal reflections as reviewers and editors. Figure 1 The typical review process for a scientific peer-reviewed journal. After the author, maybe with trembling hands, hits the “Submit article” button, an e-mail titled “Please be associate editor for a new manuscript” appears in my mailbox. After scanning the title and abstract of the manuscript, I click “agree” if the manuscript is not clearly outside my area of expertise. You would be surprised how wide the range of topics of received manuscripts is! As an author, it is mandatory to carefully select the journal to submit to and to choose a clear, descriptive title and adequate key words, to increase your chances of reaching the right Editor immediately, and also aid the Editor in finding …

Does it pose a threat? Investigating the impact of Bt corn on monarch butterflies

Aspiring scientists know that a hallmark of science is that experiments are repeatable and testable.&nbsp; However, students do not often get opportunities to explore the replicability of science.&nbsp; Using a current &ldquo;hot topic&rdquo; of genetically modified organisms, this lesson enables students to use a series of primary literature articles to explore the impact of Bt corn on the monarch butterfly.&nbsp; Through the experience, students read primary literature, apply scientific argumentation skills, reason using data and evaluate data from multiple sources to draw conclusions.&nbsp; While targeted for introductory students, this lesson can easily be adapted for upper division ecology students.&nbsp;

Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting

The ability to self-correct is considered a hallmark of science. However, self-correction does not always happen to scientific evidence by default. The trajectory of scientific credibility can fluctuate over time, both for defined scientific fields and for science at-large. History suggests that major catastrophes in scientific credibility are unfortunately possible and the argument that “it is obvious that progress is made” is weak. Careful evaluation of the current status of credibility of various scientific fields is important in order to understand any credibility deficits and how one could obtain and establish more trustworthy results. Efficient and unbiased replication mechanisms are essential for maintaining high levels of scientific credibility. Depending on the types of results obtained in the discovery and replication phases, there are different paradigms of research: optimal, self-correcting, false nonreplication, and perpetuated fallacy. In the absence of replication efforts, one is left with unconfirmed (genuine) discoveries and unchallenged fallacies. In several fields of investigation, including many areas of psychological science, perpetuated and unchallenged fallacies may comprise the majority of the circulating evidence. I catalogue a number of impediments to self-correction that have been empirically studied in psychological science. Finally, I discuss some proposed solutions to promote sound replication practices enhancing the credibility of scientific results as well as some potential disadvantages of each of them. Any deviation from the principle that seeking the truth has priority over any other goals may be seriously damaging to the self-correcting functions of science.

An evaluation of "Inductivism" As the hall mark of science

An evaluation of "Inductivism" As the hall mark of science

The method of African science: A philosophical evaluation

The issue concerning the authentic method of Western (modern) science has been a problem to scientists and philosophers of science alike. While some think inductive method is the hallmark of science, some believe science progresses better through the deductive method. The problem of the method of science is not peculiar to Western science. In African science, here classified into “traditional” and “modernized” African science, some elements of the Western method of science could also be found. However, the traditional African scientists, given their conception of the world, tend to give prominence to the metaphysico-religious method or supernaturalism, in addition to elements of the Western method. Given this background, this paper contends that this method of African science is perhaps more problematic and would not allow African science to grow. At best such approach to science, inspite of what ever feat the African scientists may achieve, would always be esoteric, personal, and devoid of any theorization. Without the elements of objectivity, impersonalization and rigorous theorization, traditional African science will still remain miles away from western science.

Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

The popular defense of intelligent design/creationism (ID) theories, as well as theories in evolutionary biology, especially from the perspective that both are worthy of scientific consideration, is that empirical evidence has been presented that supports both. Both schools of thought have had a tendency to rely on the same class of evidence, namely, the observations of organisms that are in need of being explained by those theories. The result is conflation of the evidence that prompts one to infer hypotheses applying ID or evolutionary theories with the evidence that would be required to critically test those theories. Evidence is discussed in the contexts of inferring theories/hypotheses, suggesting what would be possible tests, and actual testing. These three classes of inference being abduction, deduction, and induction, respectively. Identifying these different inferential processes in evolutionary biology and ID allow for showing that the evidence to which theories and hypotheses provide understanding cannot be the same evidence supporting those theories and hypotheses. This clarification provides a strong criterion for showing the inability of an ID theory to be of utility in the ongoing process of acquiring causal understanding, that is the hallmark of science.

FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PATH TO DRAWING REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PREVENTION

FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE PATH TO DRAWING REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT PREVENTION

Imaging Technique Explored As Depression Treatment

Imaging Technique Explored As Depression Treatment

Advances in frequent itemset mining implementations

article Advances in frequent itemset mining implementations: report on FIMI'03 Share on Authors: Bart Goethals University of Helsinki, Finland University of Helsinki, FinlandView Profile , Mohammed J. Zaki Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New YorkView Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGKDD Explorations NewsletterVolume 6Issue 1June 2004 pp 109–117https://doi.org/10.1145/1007730.1007744Online:01 June 2004Publication History 159citation759DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations159Total Downloads759Last 12 Months15Last 6 weeks1 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access

A Rejoinder: In Regards to Critiques of My Research on Filipino Self-Help and Peacemaking in the Mindanao Hinterland

Reviewing feedback toward one's own research is gratifying. Criticism is, of course, at the heart of science and I was in support of seeing the reviews published. The two evaluations of my work on Filipino self-help and peacemaking (Austin 1995) offer a mixed bag of critiques. Some, if not most, of the comments by Paredes represent rather minor complaints. Others, including those by Nadeau and Suminguit are more substantive. Several points are in order in reference to ethnographic methodology which the critics seem to gloss over. First, as any number of methods texts will suggest, qualitative research, and participant observation in particular, may reap findings of highest validity. The researcher looks, listens, directly experiences, and makes an interpretation which at least to the researcher is accurate and true. Unfortunately, the same results may suffer in regards to reliability. This is the fate of ethnography and surely of the lone fieldworker. This is why replication, particularly in the instance of fieldwork, is a hallmark of science. The critics do not refer to their own ethnography in the province of Lanao del Norte (Mindanao) in scolding me for my work. Particularly in regards to Paredes, it appears that she has spent some time in the Philippines and is simply peering through different lenses than I and that some of my findings have stepped on toes. A second methodological note is that the critical points, several from Paredes and most of those from Nadeau and Suminguit, provoke continued interest and dialogue. In such cases, I view the critical comments in a productive light and see numerous opportunities for additional hypothesis construction and testing by future researchers.