DEVC 208: Communication of Scientific

and Technical Information

Assignment 1
Generating Scientific Knowledge

Submitted by:

Espineda, Melvin Navarroza

2012-81282
Master of Development Communication
University of the Philippines Open University
Scientific Knowledge

Science is composed of two things, one of which is the body of knowledge and the
process where that “knowledge” is produced. We only commonly see the “the body of
the knowledge” component science but in fact, this second component of science
provides us with a way of thinking and knowing about the world.

Historical Background

The social character of scientific knowledge studied by philosophers can be traced

lineage at least as far as John Stuart Mill. Mill’s well-known political essay on Liberty,
(Mill 1859) occurs arguments rather than in the context of his logical and methological
writings, but he clarifies that they are to apply to any kind of knowledge or truth claim.
From the fallibility of human knower, Mills argues that the necessity of unobstructured
opportunity for and practice of the critical discussion of ideas.

The contribution of Pierce to the social epistemology of science is commonly taken to

be his consensual theory of truth: “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to
by all who investigate is what we mean by truth, and the object represented is the real.”
(Peirce 1878, 133) Which is being interpreted as meaning more precisely either that
truth (and “the real”) depends on the community’s agreement of inquries or that is the
effect of the real that it will in the end produce agreement among inquiries.
Falsificationist is Popper’s methodology of science, and this science progresses through
the demonstration by falsification of the untenability of theories and hyphotheses.
Popper's own views are more closely approximated by evolutionary epistemology,
especially that version that treats cognitive progress as the effect of selection against
incorrect theories and hypotheses.

The work of Mill, Peirce and Popper has been useful for Philosophers presently
exploring the social dimension of scientific knowledge. However, the current debates
are framed in the context of developments in both philosophy of science as well as in
history and social studies of science following the collapse of the logical empiricist

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 2

consensus. In able to give us confidence in the knowledge produced there are a
number of things that distinguish the scientific process.

Generating Scientific Knowledge: The Process

Science is not only about a body of knowledge, but it is also a way of knowing. One
important foundation for learning science is students’ conception of the nature and
structure of scientific knowledge and the process by which it is developed.

We view understanding of the nature and structure of scientific knowledge and the
process by which it is developed as a commendable end in and of itself. In addition,
transpiring research manifestation suggests that students’ grasp of scientific
explanations of the natural world and their ability to engage successfully in scientific
investigations are advanced when they understand how scientific knowledge is
constructed.

The way of building knowledge and making predictions about the world in such a way
that they are testable is through scientific process. This could be studied through
multiple lines of research, and the evidence evaluated. In every scientific discipline
typically use different methods and approaches to investigate the natural world, but
testing lies at the core of scientific inquiry for all scientists.

As scientists analyze and interpret the data they are able to

generate hypotheses, theories, or laws, which help explain their results and place
them in context of the larger body of scientific knowledge. Additional experiments,
observations, modeling and theoretical studies are being tested to expound topics. Thus
the body of scientific knowledge builds on previous ideas and is constantly growing. It is
deliberately shared with colleagues through the process of peer review where scientists
comment on each other’s work, and then through publication in the scientific literature
where it can be evaluated and integrated into the body of scientific knowledge by the
larger community. And this is not the end: one of the hallmarks of scientific knowledge is
that it is subject to change, as new data are collected and reinterpretations of existing

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 3

data are made. The revolution of new generation emerge and expand the information
and communication technologies and internet-based tools is opening space for new
possibilities to improve both scientific methodology and communication, assessment,
promotion and certification.

These new technologies allow modern methods of acquisition, manipulation and

storage, generating massive data volumes that can further facilitate the research
process. It also facilitates access to scientific results through information sharing and
discussion. Content previously restricted only to specialists is now available to a wider
audience.

With this context, it requires new management systems to make scientific knowledge
more accessible and useable, including new measures to evaluate the reach of
scientific information not only among professionals and specialists but also to the
general public. The new science and research quality measures are strongly related to
the new online technologies and services based in social media.

The Experts of Science

The science experts do not usually take a straight path from their curiosity to
knowledge. The science process is not absolute or linear. The scientific method is
sometimes described as a sequence of events: observe, ask a question, formulate a
hypothesis/make a prediction, design an experiment, analyze and reflect on the results.
In practice, the scientists usually start with observing, if the observation has been made
they usually institute questions which lead them in reflecting on what is happening all
throughout an investigation.

Conducting research is an important part of a scientist’s job. But there is more to

science than conducting a study. It is part of a scientist’s job to present the results of a
study to the public. Scientists give talks and present posters at professional meetings.
And they publish their results in scientific journals.

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 4

In addition, scientists bring more than just a toolbox of techniques to their work. They
should make complex decisions about the interpretation of data, about which problems
to pursue, and about when to conclude an experiment. They have to decide the best
ways to work with others and exchange information. Furthermore, taken all together,
these matters of judgment contribute greatly to the craft of science, and the character of
a person's individual decisions helps determine that person's scientific style (as well as,
on occasion, the impact of that person's work).

Errors and Negligence in Science

Scientific results are usually inherently provisional. Science experts can never affirm
comprehensively that they have described some aspect of the natural or physical world
with complete accuracy. In that sense, all scientific results must be treated as
susceptible to error.

Errors soaring from human glitches also occur in science. Science experts do not have
immeasurable working time or access to unlimited resources. Even the most liable
scientist can make an honest mistake. When such errors have been discovered, they
should be acknowledged, alternatively in the same journal in which the erroneous
information was published. Science experts who make such acknowledgments promptly
and openly are rarely condemned by colleagues.

Misapprehensions made through negligent work are considered more harshly. Haste,
haphazardness, inattention—any of a number of faults can lead to work that does not
meet the standards demanded in science. If science experts cut corners for whatever
comprehension, they are placing their trustworthiness, the work of their colleagues, and
the public's confidence in science at risk.

Acceptance of Scientific Knowledge

All new discoveries and ideas of scientists must have to go through a process of peer
review. A study can be considered as sound science when other science experts in the
field take a very close look at it. Those science experts review the entire study,

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 5

examining the strengths and weaknesses of the ideas, the stud design, the data and the
interpretation of the results.

The peer review only works if the scientists are both critical thinkers and open-minded
thinkers. If most experts agreed on an explanation for a particular scientific problem, this
information becomes part of accepted knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is not constant; it changes as new discoveries as well as ideas are
made. The previously accepted interpretations can be obsolete if the new information
rises.

Challenges to sharing knowledge

It is fully understood that the recognition of the gap between the people who produce
scientific knowledge that informs adaptation and the people who need to apply that
knowledge on the ground. Our challenge is to bridge this gap and break down silos of
academic and practitioner-based disciplines in order to create a healthy and sustained
landscape of trust and shared dialogue that generates need-driven knowledge.

Another challenge to sharing knowledge can be institutional barriers and technical

capacity. It can be difficult to make decisions informed by sound science when decision-
makers cannot always depend on African institutions to have correct information, have
the resources to conduct the research, or have access to information. Furthermore, it is
important that external demands such as financing and support will help to facilitate
needs-based knowledge exchange and not further complicate them by shifting interests
and priorities with limited input from regional voices. Integrated country-driven
responses must guide the entirety of a project including planning, implementation and
monitoring and evaluation.

References:

1. The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge

First published Fri Apr 12, 2002; substantive revision Thu Mar 7, 2013
Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 6
 (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/#HisBac)

2. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D., Retrieved June 27, 2013
(http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=185)

3. Dialogue on Knowledge for the 21st Century: Indigenous knowledge,

Science and connecting diverse knowledge systems. The Resilience and
Development Programme (SwedBio) at Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC)
and NAPTEK at the Swedish Biodiversity Centre1. Updated 201200120

(http://www.dialogueseminars.net/resources/Panama/Reading/A.-Seminar-
documents/ToR_Knowledge-Dialogue120120.pdf)

4. On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research, Second Edition (

1995 )

(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4917&page=3)

5. Media for Science Forum

Vladimir de Semir
Science Communication Observatory
Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain)
(http://www.mediaforscience.com/Resources/documentos/booklet_en.pdf)

6. PlantingScience.
staff: [email protected], Retrieved: June 28, 2013
(http://www.plantingscience.org/index.php?module=content&func=view&pid=73)

7. Research Blogging: Indexing and Registering the Change in Science 2.0

Sibele Fausto, Fabio A. Machado, Luiz Fernando J. Bento, Atila Iamarino,
Tatiana R. Nahas, David S. Munger

(http://www.ploscollections.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.005010
9)

8. Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-

8 (2007)
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11625&page=169)

9. George Box, “Evolutionary Operation: A Method for Increasing

Industrial Productivity,” Applied Statistics, Vol. 6, 1957.
(http://sigma-science.com/documents/Scientific%20Method%20Box.pdf)

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 7

 10. The participation of ACCFP Alumni in COP17 was
supported by the Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) program
(http://start.org/download/2012/accfp_cop17.pdf)

Assignment 1: Generating Scientific Knowledge 8