# Presentation: 031165

## SCIENTIFIC REASONING: GETTING TO THE CORE OF THE QUESTION

- Lydia Aguilar-Bryan
- Renty Franklin
- Ricardo Azziz

## Scientific Reasoning

- Basics of scientific reasoning *(Azziz)*
- Choosing a field of study *(Aguilar-Bryan)*
- Role of the Mentor *(Aguilar-Bryan)*
- Understanding the history & evolution of the field *(Azziz)*
- Ask an important (fundamental) question *(Franklin)*
- Ask the right question *(Franklin)*
- Hypothesis, objective, aim development *(Franklin)*

## Scientific Reasoning:The Basics

_**Science**_:
-   System of knowledge covering general truths, or the operation of general laws, especially as obtained and tested through the _scientific method_

## Scientific Reasoning:The Basics

_**The Scientific Method**_: Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving:
- Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
- Formulation of hypotheses to explain the phenomena.
- Use of hypotheses to make predictions of the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
- Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
- Modify the hypothesis in the light of results.

## Scientific Reasoning:The Basics

**Scientific knowledge is **_**proven**_** knowledge****:**
- Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment.
- Science is based on what we can see, hear, and touch, etc.
- Personal opinion or preference have no place in science.
- Science is objective.
_*Speculative imaginings*_ have no place in science..... OR DO THEY?

*A.F. Chalmers. What Is This Thing Called Science? Hackett Publishing Co., Inc., Indianapolis, 1999*

## Scientific Reasoning:Scientific Mindset

**Think critically**
- Is there independent confirmation of the data?
- Is it quantifiable/measurable?
- Are there other (simpler) explanations?
- Beware of correlation vs. causation
**Think skeptically**
- “Show me the data”
- Question dogmas
- Is there a possible bias?

## Scientific Reasoning:Scientific Mindset

**Seek the truth**
- Do not pursue ideas simply due to previous effort expended
**Seek simplicity**
- Occam’s Razor

## Scientific Reasoning:Occam’s Razor

**Logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher  **_**William of Occam**_** (or Ockham). Often called the **_**principle of parsimony**_**. **
**One should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed, such that “**_***we should choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one***_**.” **
**Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. **

## Scientific Reasoning:Scientific Mindset

**Discipline & Perseverance**
- Remember that 80% (or more) of experiments will be negative by design (power of 0.80).
**Foster open debate**
- Encourage and support the free exchange of information
- However, be prudent in your exchange of preliminary models or results

## Scientific Reasoning:Scientific Mindset

**FOCUS, FOCUS, FOCUS**
- Become the expert in one area, not the “*jack of all trades*”
- However, be careful of putting on blinders

## Scientific Reasoning:Schools of Thought

_**Inductivism**_**: From observation arises general theories (Francis Bacon,               John Stuart Mills)**
_**Popper**_** (1934): Theories cannot be proven, just disproven**
_**Kuhn**_** (1962): Science can be “Normal” or “Revolutionary”**
_**Lakatos**_** (1970): Science develops in programmes, not isolated hypotheses **
_**Feyerabend**_** (1975): Science does not develop by a specific method**
_**Bayesian**_**: Theories can be assigned a probability based on credibility (probability of the “gut feeling”)**

## Scientific Reasoning: Choosing a field of study

- Generally serendipitous
- Must have _PASSION_ for field of study, so choose what appeals at a visceral level, but....
- Choose only after the field proves:
- Important (relevant to human well-being)
- Sufficiently broad (variety of approaches/questions)
- Sufficiently fertile (many unanswered questions)
- Sufficiently mentored (need guidance)

## Scientific Reasoning:The Role of the Mentor

- Critical to the development of the young physician scientist
- Mentors must have experience, time, and desire
- Should encourage all aspects of the professional development of the trainee.
- Should help to identify the field of study, the questions to be asked, the tools to be used, and the presentation of the data
- Should encourage and guide networking and collaborative efforts

## Scientific Reasoning:The Role of the Mentor

- Should provide positive and frequent feedback
- Mentors must consider the individual, and often personal, needs of the trainees
- Mentors should foster the development of an _independent and self sufficient_ research career
- Mentors may be multiple, e.g. for scientific/technical issues or for career development
- Mentors are not always role models

## Scientific Reasoning:The Role of the Mentor

- Of  1302 junior faculty surveyed, 54% reported a recent mentoring relationship
- No significant difference in the prevalence and quality of the mentoring relationships:
- Between men and women faculty.
- Between majority and minority faculty
- The faculty with mentors rated their research preparation and research skills higher than did the faculty without mentors.
- The majority of women and minority faculty with mentors reported that it was _not_ important to have a mentor of the same gender or minority group.

***Palepu et al. Acad Med 1998;73:318-23***

## Scientific Reasoning: Understand the history of the field

**Fields of study evolve and develop, often changing focus and direction**
**Must understand chronologically the develop of the field of study.**
**Must attempt to identify potential biases/dogmas inherent in the same. **
**Should strive to avoid unintentional duplication.**
**Must get to know past and present players in their field of study.**
_**After all, much of the fun of research is about relationships and collegiality**_**!**

## Scientific Reasoning:Asking an important question

**Your research may:**
_**Open**_** new avenues of investigation**
_**Expand**_** avenues of investigation **
_**Complete**_** current knowledge**
**Does the question pass the *****“So what?”***** test?**
**Is the question relevant to human well-being?**
**Is the question fundamental?**
**Most fields of research only have 2-3 fundamental questions from which all others stem **

## Scientific Reasoning: Ask the right question

**Will the question provide an intelligible result regardless of actual result?**
**If as expected, then what?**
**If as unexpected, then what?**
**How many potential unexpected answers can there be?**
**Is the question at a conceptual cross-roads?**
**Will the result actually answer the question?**

## Scientific Reasoning:Hypothesis vs. Theory

**Hypothesis**
**A tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences. **
**Testable**
**Theory**
**A plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena. **
**An unproved (unprovable?) assumption**

## Scientific Reasoning:Formulating Hypotheses

**Hypotheses**
**Are based on the important and right questions asked**
**Are generally mechanistic **
**Should be testable, by different  experiments **
**Are based on some degree of preliminary data**

## Scientific Reasoning:Objectives & Aims

**Broad aims (goals) of research**
**Indicates what the line of research intends to accomplish**
**Objective**** **
**Specific goal of the experiment(s) proposed to test the hypothesis**
**Aim**
**May be a specific objective, or may represent a series of experimental objectives testing a hypothesis**