The Danger of Judging Scientists by What They Discover
Article link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-danger-of-judging-scientists-by-what-they-discover/
Summarize sections as you read the article and create an outline of the structure of the text. This will allow you to map out the parts of the text and how they are hierarchically arranged. Crucially, you should try to understand the main point being raised by the research study, commentary, or theoretical perspective. What is the author/are the authors trying to convey in the article?
Describe what the ideas or claims in the article are based on. Is this about an empirical (research) study and its findings? Is it a commentary about an important issue by an expert? Is the article proposing a theory to explain a phenomenon, and if so, what previous work and ideas support this theory? Why is it a plausible theory rather than just some unfounded speculation?
Describe the author or authors of the article. Are they the ones who did the research (is it a primary source) or is this a report by someone else (is it a secondary source)? If it is a report, then is the author a journalist or writer, or a researcher in the field (for example, a psychologist or a neuroscientist)? While you are not being asked to compare reports with the actual primary source, you should still read the article with a critical eye and ask yourself if the report seems reliable and reasonable. Does the “reporter” make any claims that seem like exaggerations or based on personal speculation?
Summarize the main ideas in the article and explain the key terms and concepts. If the article is a longer one and covers several ideas, then select one main idea to focus on and clearly state that that is your goal in the introduction to your paper. That introduction should get your reader’s attention, state the goal of your summary, and provide a brief description of the organization of your text. Divide it into relevant sections (perhaps three to four) and use headings to organize them.
No More Worries!
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Paper Formatting
- Double or single-spaced
- 1-inch margin
- 12 Font Arial or Times New Roman
- 300 words per page
No Lateness!
Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay
Our Guarantees
- Free Unlimited revisions
- Guaranteed Privacy
- Money Return guarantee
- Plagiarism Free Writing
The Danger of Judging Scientists by What They Discover
The Danger of Judging Scientists by What They Discover
Summary:
The article discusses the dangers of judging scientists based on their research findings and how this can lead to the politicization of science. It highlights the importance of separating scientific inquiry from personal ideologies and biases. The author argues that attributing scientists' motivations or ideologies based on their research results undermines the objectivity of science and erodes shared understanding. The article also emphasizes the need for greater transparency and objectivity in scientific methods to regain public trust.
Structure of the Text:
IntroductionIntroduces the topic of judging scientists based on their discoveries
The Influence of Beliefs on Perception of Research FindingsDiscusses motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and selective attention
The Experimental Study by Dr. Ivar HannikainenDescribes the study that presents participants with opposite research findings to test the influence of scientists' values on beliefs
Participants' Attribution of Ideological ValuesExamines the participants' attribution of egalitarian or non-egalitarian views to the scientist based on the research findings
Implications for the Politicization of ScienceExplores how the perception of scientists' ideologies can polarize reactions to research findings and undermine shared understanding
Promoting Objectivity and Transparency in ScienceAdvocates for focusing on advancements that allow greater objectivity and transparency in scientific methods
Conclusion Summarizes the main points and emphasizes the importance of separating science from ideology
Main Ideas:
Judging scientists based on their research findings can lead to the politicization of science.
Motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, and selective attention influence how individuals perceive and interpret research findings.
An experimental study by Dr. Ivar Hannikainen demonstrates how participants attribute ideological values to scientists based on research results.
Perceiving scientists' ideologies based on their research findings undermines the objectivity of science and erodes shared understanding.
Greater objectivity and transparency in scientific methods are needed to regain public trust.
Separating science from ideology is crucial to maintain the integrity of scientific research.
Key Terms and Concepts:
Motivated reasoning: The tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms existing beliefs or biases.
Confirmation bias: The inclination to seek out and interpret information that supports pre-existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory evidence.
Selective attention: The tendency to pay attention to information that aligns with one's beliefs while disregarding opposing viewpoints.
Politicization of science: The process by which scientific research and findings become influenced or distorted by political ideologies.
Objectivity in science: The impartiality and neutrality in conducting and interpreting scientific research, free from personal biases or preconceived notions.
Transparency in science: The openness and clarity in scientific methods, data collection, analysis, and reporting, allowing for scrutiny and replication by others.
Sample Answer
Our Services
- Research Paper Writing
- Essay Writing
- Dissertation Writing
- Thesis Writing
Why Choose Us
- Money Return guarantee
- Guaranteed Privacy
- Written by Professionals
- Paper Written from Scratch
- Timely Deliveries
- Free Amendments