Open main menu

Contents

Aristotle and Scientific MethodEdit

Can somebody please tell me why Aristotle list as creator of Scientific Method? Scientific method was created 1000 years after him. Aristotle was a philosopher not a Scientist.Teaksmitty (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You could try reading the reference you continue to delete. I'm sorry that you don't like Aristotle being listed in such a way but it takes more than your personal disapproval to make it "controversial". Helpsome (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a word is mention about scientific method on Aristotle page. He was a great philosopher that's what he is known by. Teaksmitty (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See History of scientific method#Aristotelian science and empiricism. And [1]. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Teaksmitty These are words from his article:" He contributed to almost every field of human knowledge then in existence, and he was the founder of many new fields. According to the philosopher Bryan Magee, "it is doubtful whether any human being has ever known as much as he did".[1] Among countless other achievements, Aristotle was the founder of formal logic,[2] pioneered the study of zoology, and left every future scientist and philosopher in his debt through his contributions to the scientific method.[3][4]"

References

  1. ^ Magee, Bryan (2010). The Story of Philosophy. Dorling Kindersley. p. 34.
  2. ^ W. K. C. Guthrie (1990). "A history of Greek philosophy: Aristotle : an encounter". Cambridge University Press. p.156. ISBN 0-521-38760-4
  3. ^ "Aristotle (Greek philosopher) – Britannica Online Encyclopedia". Britannica.com. Archived from the original on 22 April 2009. Retrieved 26 April 2009.
  4. ^ Durant, Will (2006) [1926]. The Story of Philosophy. United States: Simon & Schuster, Inc. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-671-73916-4.
--Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Researching is a diffrent method than rereading becuase much people don't care if they read at all. Rereading is going in the book & reading the book again. Much people don't like that because it's very akward that it is not nice to students but they have to do that to be smart. Because they have do that so they remember the story. Researching is the same as rereading because your going back & knowing what the answer is. & if you don't read at all... you won't be smart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.198.215.38 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Data analysisEdit

डाटा अनालिस रिसर्च का अंतिम पड़ाव होता हैं | जिसके माध्यम से फिल्ड से जुटाई गयी जानकारी को ग्राफ और टेबल के माध्यम से लोगों को सुगमता के साथ समझाया जाता हैं | ताकि उस पर आगे चलकर कुछ कदम उठाया जा सके | — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rks1983 (talkcontribs) 11:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Basic research and R&DEdit

I modified the introductory paragraph on the basis that basic research should be separate from R&D, since R&D intrinsically is linked to applied research. Basic research is concerned with building knowledge, while applied research aims to feed into development of products. Suitable literature should be consulted to help clarify this conundrum. Possibly refer to: OECD 2002 Frascati Manual — Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, p. 30. Rrobotto (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I commend to you Science the Endless Frontier which set US science policy since the end of WWII. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Research methodsEdit

I would argue that there are many more types of research in the world of academia. Could there also be mathematical?

This is a link pertaining to mathematical research: https://www.bcps.org/offices/lis/researchcourse/subject_math.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzaf21 (talkcontribs) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Gzaf21 (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

M. Phil. and Ph. D.Edit

This article could have a link to research degrees, such as M.Phil. and Ph. D. Vorbee (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Research programmeEdit

The article could clarify what is meant by the term "research programme".Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Idigenous research methodologiesEdit

I would argue that indigenous reseach methodologies needs to be added to this article, as a valid alternative to the european and andro-centric scientific method of research. One of the seminal works discussing the principles of indigenous research methods was authored by Cora Weber-Pillwax and published in the Journal of Educational Thought [1]. Looking for some input as to in which section this belongs. Lavender is the new teal (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Weber-Pillwax C., Indigenous Research Methodology, Journal of Educational Thought, Vol. 33, No. 1 (April, 1999) pp.33-45

Removal of subjective matterEdit

The following subjective, first-person collection of opinionated statements with no reference followed the last sentence of the current section on Etymology directly:

WHAT IS A RESEARCH
Most people conduct research for just the degree they are looking for. They do the research for just to grab the degree,that is all. In-fact there are two approaches or to objectives for conducting a research. The first one is the traditional way of conducting a research which is conducting a research for only filling knowledge gap. This kind of people in doing the research consult only books, journal, conference papers and they try to find where the research gap is even if the research is trivial and not important the researcher will insist to conduct the research in the area. Unfortunately most traditional researchers do this form of research, they just try to find only a gap in research especially in management and management information system, people try to find just a gap, for the reason of filling the gap and publish paper and they say we have a research, we have available research, but I don’t think so, just to fill knowledge gap is not a big deal, hence it is not a research.
On the other hand, the other people feel that research is just to solve a problem. This kind of people, we can call them consultants. They look at the problem at different perspectives, they contact the company and understand the problem of the company and try to solve the problem of the company. Unfortunately, this kind of people don’t look at books as the others do, they try to write one or two books, four or five journals and that is it and they try to solve the problem from their own experience, however,they don’t look deep into literature review as the first group do. The problem here is that this people may end up repeating what others have done because they don’t know what others have done in that area and they have a major problem.
Therefore, as can be seen, the two groups are not purely right. The first group misses the problem solving nature of every research, while the second group may end up repeating what others have done since they don’t engage in thorough literature review. They end up not filling the knowledge gap. What then is real research?
The real research is being somewhere in between the two groups: “filling knowledge gap and solve a problem”. You can be anywhere in between but in most cases you have a condition. The first condition is that you have to solve a problem but before solving a problem you must do a RE---search. What is a re-search? You have to search books and papers to check if someone has solved similar problem before, even if someone has done the research, you can criticize the person to find a knowledge gap.
Therefore, research involves solving a problem and filling knowledge gap at the same time. - ResearchWap


I have removed the above for its overall irrelevance to the section, lack of references, unnecessary length and remarkable subjectivity. SpiritofEnquiry (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Research" page.