Question

define science studies and provide an example.

So far the way that I see it science studies is when scientific research methods are used to find a relationship among variables in an interdisciplinary field?
If you can give me a better definition and an example that would be great.

Answer 1

Answer:

Science Studies:

Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation, and reception of scientific knowledge and its epistemic and semiotic role. Science studies, as we know, was born in controversy and sustains itself controversially, largely against the scientific community that is the subject of so much of its work. It has flourished, certainly, because the work of science has in many ways been socially and politically determining in our time--because, whether we like it or not, science, understood or not understood, shapes our consciousness as it shapes the material conditions of our society. We may be enthusiasts for science or frightened observers of its power, but we know that we can't ignore it and that not to be aware of its power is not to be educated.

     Science studies has its singular genealogies, growing from historical, philosophical, sociological, as well as literary, concerns, but it is often rather amusingly (if its implications weren't ultimately so serious) lumped under the heading of postmodernism, where a lot of kooky, anti-intellectual, politically correct, and subversive types have been thought to hang out.

Learning about the scientific method is almost like saying that you are learning how to learn.

The scientific method is a process used by scientists to study the world around them

Certainly, many of us turned our attention to science studies because we were fascinated by science and admired it enormously. But science itself is not, as Smith reminds us, a "monolithic" entity; it is, rather, a complex and continuing process that transforms and often supplies the materials for its critique as readily and as significantly as literary studies do. In-so­far as we imagine science as an institution formally embodied in the academy and a hierarchy of material practice all over the world, discussion of science always has strong practical implications.

We need to consider whether, as we investigate relations between scientific and cultural discourse, we are implicitly attacking the institution. Looking around the university, literary faculty find that science faculty teach less and earn more and have access to funding beyond the humanist's fiscal imagination; science faculty find that literary study is full of ambivalences and ambiguities and, alas, moralisms, that would be discredited in their fields. These practical, cultural differences don't help. But they don't inevitably entail the for-or-against rhetoric that is now dominating public discussion.

We all have questions about the world. The scientific method is there to test if your answer was correct. You could ask, "Why do dogs and cats have hair?" One answer might be that it keeps them warm.

just about everything starts with a question. Usually, scientists come up with questions by looking at the world around them. "What is that?" See that squiggly thing at the end of the sentence? A question has been born.

So you've got a scientist. When scientists see something they don't understand they have some huge urge to answer questions and discover new things. It's one of those scientists personality traits. The trick is that you have to be able to offer some evidence that confirms every answer you give. If you can't test your answer, other scientists can't test it to see if you were right or not.

As more questions are asked, scientists build a foundation of answers. Once you have a lot of individual answers, it’s time to organize. One of the cool things about science is that other scientists can learn things from what has already been established. They don't have to go out and test everything again and again. Science is special because it builds on what has been learned before.

The whole process allows the world to advance, evolve, and grow. All of today's advancements are based on the achievements of scientists who already did great work. For example, you will never have to show that water (H2O) is composed of one oxygen (O) and two hydrogens (H) atoms. Many scientists before you have confirmed that fact. It will be your job as a new scientist to take that knowledge and use it in new experiments.

Accumulation of Evidence

There are different terms used to describe scientific ideas based on the amount of confirmed experimental evidence.

Hypothesis - a statement that uses a few observations
- an idea or proposition based on observations without experimental evidence
Theory
- uses many observations and has loads of experimental evidence
- can be applied to unrelated facts and new relationships
- flexible enough to be modified if new data/evidence introduced
Law
- stands the test of time, often without a change
- experimentally confirmed over and over
- can create true predictions for different situations
- has uniformity and is universal

You may also hear about the term "model." A model is a scientific statement that has some experimental validity or is a scientific concept that is only accurate under limited situations. Models do not work or apply under all situations in all environments. They are not universal ideas like a law or theory. Climatologists use many models to predict climate change. Each model is dependent on specific variables and situations.