Post on 15-May-2015
description
Science is argumentation
• Numbers can’t speak for themselves • We need to know when planning an
experiment what the numbers are for
Science is argumentation
• What is written in the grant proposal has an influence on the subsequent research
Science is argumentation
• Perelman & Olbrecths-Tyteca (1958): Convincing yourself is a special case of convincing others
Science is argumentation
• Gadamer (1960): All thought is directed by application
• For a scientist, the application is to convince other scientists
Science is argumentation
• Latour & Woolgar (1979): empirical demonstration that the natural sciences are as much about argumentation as any other
The scientific argument
• Example (Heidenberg, Nåls, Porres 2008: Statechart features and pre-release maintenance defects, p. 465)
• Quote: “The understandability points ratio and the assessed difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
“The understandability points ratio and the assessed difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Form: enthymeme • Major premise: understandability points
ratio and assessed difficulty indicate ease of understanding and changing
• Minor premise: “in Table 4 we can see that ModelA generated better values for all four data points.”
• Conclusion: ModelA is easier to understand and change
“The understandability points ratio and the assessed difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Point we wish to make: It is easier to understand models written using a better design style
“The understandability points ratio and the assessed difficulty for changeability are the two major indicators that ModelA was easier to understand and change.”
• Evidence: Paired sample t-test comparing Model1 – ModelA.
The scientific argument
• This kind of rhetorical analysis can be done with different choices of base unit size: sentence, paragraph, section, article, book …
Scientific evidence
• We can always get more evidence, hence interpretation is important, not quantity
Scientific evidence
• Evidence and interpretation is linked by the point that we’re trying to make
• This point is: the research goal
Fieldwork
• You have to solve problems and adjust your method as you go along
• People are unpredictable. If you knew what they’re going to say there would be no point in talking to them
Scientific theory
• Gadamer: No understanding can take place without prejudice
• Prejudice: what we expect to see
Scientific theory
• Can we write down all our prejudices, i.e. all we know? Of course not. Hence, theory presents a certain perspective, determined by application
Science as dialogue
• Why is it a good metaphor? • In science, as in dialogue, it is important to
‘listen’ to the evidence
Science as dialogue
• To select a method and stick to it no matter what the observations show is like a person that only talks about himself and asks questions without listening to the answers