Essay+Title+6

//The ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly re-test each other’s results. // To what extent would you agree with this claim in the natural sciences and the human sciences? Knowledge issues brainstormed in class. (//Be aware that these knowledge issues in some instances need reworking)//
 * ESSAY TOPIC 6 **
 * Can bias and research error ever be eliminated from data even if it is re-tested?
 * To what extent can results be trustworthy in the Human Sciences when it is human beings studying other human beings?
 * To what extent does re-testing ensure that research error and bias is eliminated?
 * To what extent can we regard knowledge as valid if it is continually being re-tested?
 * To what extent does re-testing rely on new methods of testing in order to eliminate bias?
 * Are human beings capable of eliminating human bias?
 * To what extent is the scientific method, a method of protection or simply an inbuilt bias that can never be eliminated?


 * The ideas about question 6 that follow are from **

[]

You must reference this website if you use the ideas that follow.  I like the way this question sets up little traps. 'Ultimate', 'supposed', 'the way', 'constantly' — these are all potential pitfalls. For a start, 'ultimate' ought to mean 'to the farthest extent of one's range'; 'supposed' implies that it isn't always so; 'the way' implies there is only one way; and 'constantly' implies this continues to happen all the time.

You can create a little counter-argument involving each of these.I'm not going to deal with those in detail, but I will add that if a homogeneous class (e.g. 'scientists' all using one 'way' to 'constantly' do something) does anything, there is necessarily a built-in bias, against which there is no defence. I will also add that to suppose anything requires someone to do the supposing. Who do you suppose does the supposing here? Scientists?

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">Hopefully, at this point, I have succeeded in convincing some of my readers that this topic requires great care and detailed planning. For those who have survived this, I will now add a note about 'natural sciences' and 'human sciences'.These superclasses of disciplines are difficult to define for some people. I have given a quick summary of what they include towards the end of <span style="font-family: 'Georgia','serif';">[|this] <span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Georgia','serif';"> earlier post. Let me now define them in slightly more detail.The natural sciences are the spawn of natural history (i.e. the empirical observation and recording of natural phenomena in chronological order) and natural philosophy (i.e. the development of theory based on induction from natural phenomena or deduction from reasonable rules based on empirical observations). They include astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry and physics — disciplines which in general are considered to have objective content even in the absence of human activity or existence. Some of these disciplines may produce results that are difficult or impossible to re-test.

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'georgia','serif'; font-size: 130%;">The human sciences deal with human affairs in terms of human activities. By analogy with the natural sciences, human sciences are the spawn of human history and human philosophy. These would concern the observation, recording, analysis and theory of matters social, political, economic, religious, and military. They thus include linguistics, sociology, political science, economics, anthropology, psychology, management and other such 'soft' sciences. These disciplines would be much deprived by an hypothetical absence of humanity. These disciplines tend to produce results which are often difficult to re-test.Neither group would include many varieties of applied science, technology and engineering — these are not natural but are not generally considered human sciences either. The two groups would exclude mathematics, history, and philosophy because these are either tools or precursor disciplines; they would exclude the arts as well.Well, you now have some of the basic elements of an answer. Give the topic a good try. This will be an educational experience.