What ways of thinking about things are specific to 'scientific thinking'?

Answer 1

The simplest perhaps is "why is it so". From there it progresses through observation, to developing a hypothesis (why might it be so),experimentation to explore both observation and hypothesis, development of a proposition or "theory", and then criticism - ultimately by one's peers - to try to disprove or substantiate the "theory". But calling something a "theory" (as in evolution) doesn't denigrate it as an idea system. The capacity for disproof is essential to the scientific process -- unlike ideas and world views based simply on "belief" (which entails assumptions and expectations), or "faith" (a much misused word which entails specifically no assumptions or expectations but accepts vulnerability and uncertainty). So one might argue that science entails faith, unlike religions which entail belief. And maybe this allows science to be always sceptical, but not cynical - whereas the fear of scepticism amongst the religious often leads to cynicism when expectations are disapointed. Curious, ain't it!

Answer 2

Scientific thinking involves a lack of human emotions and opinions. Science does not involve "consensus" as Al Gore says repeatedly. No scientist knows any more than any other scientist. Scientists use the method of induction, which is simply finding a correlation, or mathematical relationship, between an altered variable and an unaltered (controlled) variable, measured quantitatively. In order to convince a scientist of something, you must show him evidence, leave him repeat your experiment and critique your own methodology, and the more scientists who repeat this process, the more likely it is that the experiment reveals an actual factual process of nature. Once it is agreed that the methodology is completely sound by multiple experimenters, that is, which is actually the first step. This is opposed by anything historical or any humanities. Any time youre dealing with human beings, except maybe for psychology, its your own "gut feeling" and of consensus that matters.

Answer 3

The hypothetico-deductive method. Scientists observe phenomena. Then they set up hypotheses and test them. Once the hypotheses are tested, they have data that they try to explain. Hypothesis testing followed by attempts at explaining the findings, followed by new hypotheses. Also, the objectivity of measurement. Scientists use something called an operational definition of a variable. The operational definition tends to be very precisely delineated. The repeatablility of a particular scientific test by another scientist is particularly important in building a body of scientific knowledge.

Answer 4

Falsifiability. Read Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations." The essential characteristic of a scientific claim is that it can potentially be shown wrong when evidence contradicts it.

That is why so-called "intelligent design" and other forms of creationism are not scientific. They cannot accept the possibility that their fundamental claim, the veracity of allegedly "revealed" information, can be rejected if evidence contradicts it.

They will argue that evidence cannot contradict it, but until they will say - "If evidence contradicts the Genesis story, I will give up my belief in Genesis" - then they cannot pretend to be doing science.

Answer 5

The power of the scientific method is its reliance of proving one's hypothesis right / wrong. Instead of being based on one's bias, pure scientific methodology rests on evidence AND the field has developed tools that determine how valid results truly are. Genuine science is reliable because it's based on observable results.

Answer 6

Mary, you really need to do some of your own thinking on the many questions you are asking. It sounds as though you have a homework assignment and want people on this site to do it for you. Do the reading and thinking. YOU CAN do it!! Good luck.

Chow!!

Answer 7

Can you be more specific and give some examples.