Scientific Inquiry

ITT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE

Compare and Contrast

Scientific Inquiry with Everyday Assumptions

Ethel Ancheta

4/24/2013

Curiosity and thought defines human consciousness. We wonder how things work and speculate about the causes of interested events. We all come up with our own reason or explanation about the nature of reality, or at least what interests us. Majority of the time, observations have provided evidence that forms the basis of explanations; however some are still left unexplained leaving our minds to wander.

As we come to our own conclusions, we are actually behaving like scientists. Inquisitive human beings are identical to scientists by sharing interests in understanding how things work, with research and exploring explanations and in predicting outcomes. The general public does not apply the general rules of science, so their general activities are naïve science. The difference between ordinary thought and scientific investigation is that scientific investigation has more requirements for scientific study. Naïve scientists try to understand interesting situations and will predict an explanation for it. It is only a theory.

A theory's purpose is to explain and predict events. If we can predict an event, we can prepare to avoid any all danger or profit from its outcome. If you can understand something well enough to explain it, the possibility of controlling it to our benefit or even change it. Theory achieves predication and explanation by revealing relationships between concepts that are variable, just like predicting behavior, it is trivial.

The main thing that differentiates between science and naïve inquiry (or everyday assumptions) is the awareness that observations and reasoning are error-prone and we must deploy strategies that help protect us against error. True scientists define concepts so that others can agree upon their meaning while a naïve scientists defines concepts in a way that only makes sense to them.