Selected Product:
no
picture
available
| A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method
Paperback
Edition: 3
Author: Stephen S. Carey
Publisher: Wadsworth Publishing
Release Date: 2003-03-17
ISBN-10: 0534584500
ISBN-13: 9780534584504
List Price: $50.95
Average Customer Rating:
  | |
An Introduction to Scientific Research
ISBN-10: 0486665453
ISBN-13: 9780486665450
List Price:$14.95
How We Know: An Exploration Of The Scientific Process
ISBN-10: 030680140X
ISBN-13: 9780306801402
List Price:$18.00
Science and Its Ways of Knowing
ISBN-10: 0132055767
ISBN-13: 9780132055765
List Price:$41.80
Scientific Method in Practice
ISBN-10: 0521017084
ISBN-13: 9780521017084
List Price:$53.00
The Fly in the Ointment: 70 Fascinating Commentaries on the Science of Everyday Life
ISBN-10: 1550226215
ISBN-13: 9781550226218
List Price:$15.95
|
To use our price comparison to get the cheapest price, please click on the "Find the Cheapest Price" button located above for A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey (ISBN-10: 0534584500, ISBN-13: 9780534584504).
At this time we have not yet written a review for A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey (ISBN-10: 0534584500, ISBN-13: 9780534584504). Please continue to keep checking back to this page as we are constantly adding reviews.
Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com
This concise book provides an introduction to the scientific method of inquiry. This book not only presents not only a methodical approach to the proper conduct of science but also contains comprehensive coverage of pseudoscience and fallacies. Compact enough to be used as a supplementary book, yet comprehensive enough in its coverage to be used as a core text, this text assists students in using the scientific method to design and assess experiments.
Excellent intro to the subject
| Customer Rating:  | This book provides an excellent introduction to the nature of scientific method. Science is basically what the scientific method is, but most people have no idea how it actually works. This book will give you a better understanding of how scientists actually go about their work. The author does a fine job of explaining scientific methods and procedures in easily understandable language, without getting too technical. I learned a lot from this book. Here are some of the things that I learned, combined with some of my previous reading, relating to how to distinguish good science from false science, and what distinguishes a good theory from a not so good theory:
Recently, I got into a discussion with someone about scientific theories and "scientific truth." This person probably wasn't very knowledgeable about science or scientific method, based on what they said, since they maintained that science is just based on assumptions, and that if your assumptions differ, your conclusions differ. If you know something about science and scientific method, however, you know that this is not the case. I went to the trouble of providing a detailed response on this issue, and much of that information came from this book, so I thought I would include it here, since there seems to be a good deal of misunderstanding among the general public about science and scientific explanation.
Much of the information comes from this book, and some of it comes from other reading.
Contrary to what this person said, validity and "truth" in science is based on a number of considerations, including:
1. The amount of, degree of accuracy, and overall preponderance of the data for both empirical and experimentally derived observations.
2. Whether the theory explains the data or observations better than competing theories.
3. Whether the theory yields testable results.
4. Whether the theory makes valid predictions.
5. Whether the theory is more complete, or just simpler and more efficient than competing explanations. Also known as "Occam's razor."
6. Whether the theory is productive in terms of multiple additional hypotheses (also related to the "heuristic" criterion I mentioned below).
7. Whether the theory is amenable to experimental validation and testing.
8. Whether the experiments yield repeatable and repeatedly consistent rather than inconsistent results.
There are other more technical criteria that I could mention too, that I won't go into here for the sake of simplicity, such as:
1. Whether the theory has close coupling between the mathematico-deductive and empirico-inductive components of the theory and/or constituent hypotheses.
2. Whether the theory is heuristically useful or valuable. In other words, whether it leads to other useful research or results.
3. Deterministic or probabilistic nature of the theory and/or evidence. In other words, the type of causation involved.
4. The degree of current validation and support for the theory and the type of validation and support (also related to my previous comments on preponderance of the data and deterministic vs. probabilistic causation).
5. Whether the theory easily yields mathematical or quantitative models or systems. Also whether the data are easily quantifiable or measurable.
6. If the theory is based on statistical evidence, whether the experiments follow accepted standards for experimental design, or accepted standards of data acquisition and gathering, as the case of "quasi-experimental" methods.
7. Whether the experiments follow the uniformitarian principle of probabilitistic causality (related to number 6, above). In other words, under similar conditions, similar causes produce similar effects.
8. Methodological considerations, such as whether the type of scientific methodology the theory uses is historical or non-historical in nature. Technically, this means whether the theory uses the non-historical method of deductive prediction of future events from known, present causes, vs. inductive inference of ancient causes from their historical results.
A lot of my discussion above is also covered very clearly in this book, and better than I was able to explain it in many ways. :-) Anyway, I hope you found my little digression a useful in further your knowledge of how science goes about its work. |
note to "an angry MIT student"
| Customer Rating: | | Try reading the book first. I know this probably seems like a ridiculously quaint notion, but you might learn something and spare the rest of us the trouble of reading hollow, unsubstantiated rants. |
Good at what it does.
| Customer Rating: | | The scientific method consists of (1) posing the intitial defining question of the investigation, (2) exploring the subject of the defining question, (3) formulating alternative hypotheses, (4) testing the hypotheses, and (5) posing a follow-up question if the defining question has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Carey's book is helpful only in step 4: it provides basic guidance for testing assertions. It also includes discussion of different kinds of explanation. It was written for non-technical beginning college students; it would also be suitable for high school students as yuoung as age 15. It is not, however, really an introduction to the scientific method; the reader should have some familiarity with the scientific method before reading this book. |
|
