Psikologi Transformatif: [psikologi_transformatif] Re: Jual-Beli Hak Ilmiah

Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method

Introduction

To succeed in this science course and, more specifically, to answer some of the questions on the first exam, you should be familiar with a few of the concepts regarding the definition of science, scientific thinking, and the methods of science. Most textbooks do an inadequate job of this task, so this essay provides that information. This information in its present form is not in your textbook, so please read it carefully here, and pay close attention to the words in boldface and the definitions in italics.

The Definition of Science

Science is not merely a collection of facts, concepts, and useful ideas about nature, or even the systematic investigation of nature, although both are common definitions of science. Science is a method of investigating nature--a way of knowing about nature--that discovers reliable knowledge about it. In other words, science is a method of discovering reliable knowledge about nature. There are other methods of discovering and learning knowledge about nature (these other knowledge methods or systems will be discussed below in contradistinction to science), but science is the only method that results in the acquisition of reliable knowledge.

Reliable knowledge is knowledge that has a high probablility of being true because its veracity has been justified by a reliable method. Reliable knowledge is sometimes called justified true belief, to distinguish reliable knowledge from belief that is false and unjustified or even true but unjustified. (Please note that I do not, as some do, make a distinction between belief and knowledge; I think that what one believes is one's knowledge. The important distinction that should be made is whether one's knowledge or beliefs are true and, if true, are justifiably true.) Every person has knowledge or beliefs, but not all of each person's knowledge is reliably true and justified. In fact, most individuals believe in things that are untrue or unjustified or both: most people possess a lot of unreliable knowledge and, what's worse, they act on that knowledge! Other ways of knowing, and there are many in addition to science, are not reliable because their discovered knowledge is not justified. Science is a method that allows a person to possess, with the highest degree of certainty possible, reliable knowledge (justified true belief) about nature. The method used to justify scientific knowledge, and thus make it reliable, is called the scientific method. I will explain the formal procedures of the scientific method later in this essay, but first let's describe the more general practice of scientific or critical thinking.

Scientific and Critical Thinking

When one uses the scientific method to study or investigate nature or the universe, one is practicing scientific thinking. All scientists practice scientific thinking, of course, since they are actively studying nature and investigating the universe by using the scientific method. But scientific thinking is not reserved solely for scientists. Anyone can "think like a scientist" who learns the scientific method and, most importantly, applies its precepts, whether he or she is investigating nature or not. When one uses the methods and principles of scientific thinking in everyday life--such as when studying history or literature, investigating societies or governments, seeking solutions to problems of economics or philosophy, or just trying to answer personal questions about oneself or the meaning of existence--one is said to be practicing critical thinking. Critical thinking is thinking correctly for oneself that successfully leads to the most reliable answers to questions and solutions to problems. In other words, critical thinking gives you reliable knowledge about all aspects of your life and society, and is not restricted to the formal study of nature. Scientific thinking is identical in theory and practice, but the term would be used to describe the method that gives you reliable knowledge about the natural world. Clearly, scientific and critical thinking are the same thing, but where one (scientific thinking) is always practiced by scientists, the other (critical thinking) is sometimes used by humans and sometimes not. Scientific and critical thinking was not discovered and developed by scientists (that honor must go to ancient Hellenistic philosophers, such as Aristotle, who also are sometimes considered the first scientists), but scientists were the ones to bring the practice of critical thinking to the attention and use of modern society (in the 17th and 18th centuries), and they are the most explicit, rigorous, and successful practitioners of critical thinking today. Some professionals in the humanities, social sciences, jurisprudence, business, and journalism practice critical thinking as well as any scientist, but many, alas, do not. Scientists must practice critical thinking to be successful, but the qualifications for success in other professions do not necessarily require the use of critical thinking, a fact that is the source of much confusion, discord, and unhappiness in our sociey .

The scientific method has proven to be the most reliable and successful method of thinking in human history, and it is quite possible to use scientific thinking in other human endeavors. For this reason, critical thinking--the application of scientific thinking to all areas of study and topics of investigation--is being taught in schools throughout the United States, and its teaching is being encouraged as a universal ideal. You may perhaps have been exposed to critical thinking skills and exercises earlier in your education. The important point is this: critical thinking is perhaps the most important skill a student can learn in school and college, since if you master its skills, you know how to think successfully and reach reliable conclusions, and such ability will prove valuable in any human endeavor, including the humanities, social sciences, commerce, law, journalism, and government, as well as in scholarly and scientific pursuits. Since critical thinking and scientific thinking are, as I claim, the same thing, only applied for different purposes, it is therefore reasonable to believe that if one learns scientific thinking in a science class, one learns, at the same time, the most important skill a student can possess--critical thinking. This, to my mind, is perhaps the foremost reason for college students to study science, no matter what one's eventual major, interest, or profession.

The Three Central Components of Scientific and Critical Thinking

What is scientific thinking? At this point, it is customary to discuss questions, observations, data, hypotheses, testing, and theories, which are the formal parts of the scientific method, but these are NOT the most important components of the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasonsing (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one's beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. Let's examine each in turn.

--- In psikologi_transformatif@yahoogroups.com, "Alexander" <alexanderkhoe@...> wrote:
>
> I(n)di(g)ot ini sekarang bacot tentang Moral dan Metode Ilmiah, apa
> ngak salah nih???? Lha Kuliah Metode Penelitian aja ngak lulus-lulus
> bisa bacot gede ditambah Moralitas semau gue begitu kok dipamerkan????
>
> ---------------
> Ini adalah definisi Proses ilmiah:
> Metode ilmiah atau proses ilmiah merupakan proses keilmuan untuk
> memperoleh pengetahuan secara sistematis berdasarkan bukti fisis.
> Ilmuwan melakukan observasi serta membentuk hipotesis dalam usahanya
> untuk menjelaskan fenomena alam. Prediksi yang dibuat berdasarkan
> hipotesis tersebut diuji dengan melakukan eksperimen. Jika suatu
> hipotesis lolos uji berkali-kali, hipotesis tersebut dapat menjadi
> suatu teori ilmiah.
>
> JADI BOHONG BESAR bila dikatakan ada HAK ILMIAH segala, yang ADA
> adalah si I(n)di(g)ot ini TIDAK MAMPU dalam mengikuti proses ilmiah,
> tidak mau dikritisi, tidak mau memperbaiki diri, tidak mau belajar,
> tidak bisa berargumentasi dengan baik. Semata-mata hanya bacot gede
> dan cuplik sana cuplik sini tanpa tahu artinya.
>
> Tentang MORAL, semua sudah tahu seperti apa kelakuan ANJING itu.
> Mengapa hal seperti ini dipamerkan?
>
> Salam,
>
>
> --- In psikologi_transformatif@yahoogroups.com, "vincentliong"
> vincentliong@ wrote:
> >
> > Jual-Beli Hak Ilmiah
> >
> > "Ilmiah adalah sebuah Hak. Bila anda memiliki Hak itu yang bisa
> dibeli
> > dengan ijasah S1, S2, S3 maka anda boleh melakukan apapun dengan
> > mencantumkan Ilmiah karena telah menjadi Hak anda. Seperti Hak beli
> > atau hak jual pada waktu tertentu di permainan future, dlsb. Karena
> > saya tidak membeli Hak Ilmiah maka tentu secara ilmiah apapun yang
> > saya lakukan akan selalu salah, empiris pun tidak dianggap lebih
> > penting daripada ilmiah, ilmiah tetapkah Hak yang Eksklusif; hak
> > menyatakan benar dan salah termasuk memberikan hukuman atas itu
> dengan
> > menghalalkan segala cara. Orang pemilik hak ilmiah hanyalah orang
> yang
> > minta diperlakukan khusus, eksklusif, dilayani lebih dan banyak
> > komplain, cerewet ;tetapi tetap saja di lapangan, peneliti empiris
> > adalah sang pemula, sebelum para ilmiahwan memberi nama atas
> sesuatu,
> > membenarkan dan menyalahkannya seenaknya sendiri dengan hak ilmiah
> > yang eksklusif."
> >
> > Kira-kira itu Ilmiah yang saya kenal selama setengah tahun ini
> melalui
> > teror pabrik_t baik yang bersifat eksternal, maupun cuciotaknya yang
> > juga merekrut orang-orang internal kompatiologi secara halus dengan
> > persiapan yang panjang bahkan sejak tahun 2006.
> >
> > Saya tidak pernah menghormati seseorang berdasarkan lefel Hak Ilmiah
> > yang dia beli; dulu, sekarang dan masa yang akan datang. Saya
> > menghormati seseorang berdasarkan relasi personalnya, ketaatannya
> pada
> > moral dasar.
> >
> > Apakah dia mengerti moral yang sangat mendasar, seperti misalnya:
> > * Tidak boleh berbohong (maka dari itu saya tidak mudah berjanji dan
> > omong besar).
> > * Tidak boleh merugikan orang lain (oleh karena itu saya tidak
> > membalas teror keluarga dengan teror keluarga, karena keluarga
> mereka
> > tidak bersalah)
> > * Tidak boleh mencuri.
> > * Tidak iri pada keberhasilan orang lain.
> > , dlsb... untuk hal-hal ini saya sangat disiplin mematuhinya sampai
> > hari ini.
> >
> > Kalau ini saja tidak mengerti maka percuma bicara etika, etika yang
> > dibicarakan hanya alasan untuk pembenaran diri sendiri melakukan
> > pelanggaran moral dasar, kode etik, etika ilmiah, etika masyakarat
> > umum, dlsb. Ilmiah hanyalah omong kosong saja yang bisa
> diperdagangkan.
> >
> > Oleh karena itu saya tidak lagi membalas atau membela diri,
> silahkan,
> > lakukan sesuka anda saya menerima dengan tangan terbuka. Tetapi,
> > jangan minta saya hormat saya...
> >
> >
> > Ttd,
> > Vincent Liong
> > Jakarta, 18 Desember 2007
> >
>