Scientific thinking - Essay Example

must be capable of disapproval (Harre? 24). Consistent logic and observation are the basis of scientific theories and knowledge. Once technology or funding catches up to the theory, the observations made will either invalidate or validate the theory. Occam’s razor is another principle of scientific thinking, also referred to as the principle of parsimony. It contends that where two explanations for a single phenomenon have equal merit, the simplest explanation should be chosen (Harre? 26). The basis of this principle is that simplicity and perfection are mutually inclusive.

However, this principle must be used with care since it does not prove anything. Instead, it acts as a suggestion or guide that the simplest explanation is always best. Another principle of scientific thinking is that of replicability, which states that, during an evaluation of psychological claims, one must question whether the findings in support of the claims are reproducible by investigators independent of him/her (Harre? 28). This is one of science’s main foundations and is the benchmark for the reliability of an experimental test.

For all research programs, independent researchers must have the ability to replicate experiments under similar conditions to get the same results. The principle seeks to ensure construction of reliable and valid methodology and analysis. The fifth principle of scientific thinking is ruling out rival hypothesis, which contends that when making a claim in psychology, the researcher must ask whether he/she has excluded alternative explanations for their claim and if the claim is explainable by other reasons (Harre? 30). This principle is important because it aids the researcher not to jump to the wrong conclusions.

The last principle of scientific thinking is correlation vs. causation, which contends that correlations between two variables or things are not proof to any connection between them (Harre? 32). This principle is linked to that of post-hoc reasoning in which assumptions that are incorrect give incorrect links between effects. It is important because it promotes better comprehension, as well as honest evaluation, of alleged facts given by various individuals and institutions. In the article The Human Soul: Are Humans Nothing More than Bodies?

, the author claims that there are three compelling reasons to prove that humans have souls. This article should be evaluated by the principle of falsifiability. In the article, the author contends that, intuitively and logically, humans recognize their non-physical aspects such as their ego (Hanegraaff 1). In addition, physical identity changes from one year to the next but there is a sameness of soul, which is essential in establishing one’s personal identity. Finally, he also claims that freedom of will makes the presupposition that man is more than a robot.

The three reasons, he claims, give man a reason to conclude that man has an immaterial nature in their natural being (Hanegraaff 1). However, while this claim on man having an immaterial and invisible soul is not necessarily wrong, the claim is unfalsifiable since no one, not even the author of the article, can produce evidence that conceivably disproves the existence of the soul. In the article Bigfoot is Alive, the author claims that Bigfoot researchers have declared that the ape-man exists and is real.

The article is complete with footage of Bigfoot and the