Conduct, Misconduct and the structure of Science - Article Example

Proffesor’s Conduct, Misconduct and the Structure of Science Baconian inductivism, this is an investigative method brought forward by Sir Francis Bacon, It involves inductive reasoning, by evaluating or constructing general propositions that have been derived from specific evidence or examples.                Advocates of these Ideas can define scientific Misconduct as, violation of the accepted standard codes by a scientist by failing to record all his/her observations, and also failing to assert only hypothesis that are strongly inductively supported by evidence.2.        Properian Falsification, developed by Karl Popper, according to his Ideas, we should only test hypothesis by deducing from it testable prediction.

Should the prediction fails to meet expectations or turns out to be false, source hypothesis from which it got deduced maybe considered falsified and must be rejected.            Advocates Properian Falsification can define scientific Misconduct as; refusing to make public in advance what sorts of facts would lead one to give up assumption, in ignoring or discarding evidence contrary to ones hypothesis or in introducing ad hoc, content-decreasing modifications in ones theories in order to defend them against refusal.

Duhem-Quine problem, the problem with Properian falsification, occurs when we cannot derive some noticeable consequences O from a Hypothesis H getting tested. I don’t agree with this because, according to Proper, it is impossible to conclusively verify a hypothesis, but we cannot conclusively falsify it either.3.        According to the author human psychology and social structure put in positively to the scientific progress, how? Human psychology is important as it enables scientists to implicit code of conduct that do encourage them to be a bit dogmatic and allows or permits certain measures of rhetorical exaggeration regarding the advantages of their work.

This leads them into defining scientific misconduct as a series of practices that deviate from those accepted by the scientific community.4.        Authors argue that reputation is a good scientific progress, because it forms a base upon which, some scientists place at least as much weight on the experiment for careful, painstaking work as on the technical details in the experiment in assessing whether the data used constitute a reliable evidence. 5.        Conflicts of interest inherent in peer review is an intrinsic conflict of interest where the referees has to decide on how peer review should be used in the allocation of resources      The author believes that peer view conducted this way is unlikely to detect instances of intentional misconduct because, the objective judgment lies majorly on the referee as he/ she is the one who receives a manuscript to judge, and since they are always anonymous, they might take advantage and conduct an unfair review, which in itself is misconduct.

     It has reduced my trust for scientific Ideas, why? Because if the review is done by a single referee who can either be biased or not, to add on that the referee is anonymous, they should be known as this would help us put blame on them should there be any misconduct.      It should change the public view to avoid future scientific misconduct; everything should be done openly no being anonymous, as the referees also rely mostly on their individual point of view. The public should know who to blame for each and every mistakes.

 Work citedBacon, Francis. Betrayers Of The Truth. New York: Simon And Schuster Publishers. 1982.Print