Cloud based computing security Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Cloud based computing security - Essay Example ability) , discusses the security challenges that currently face the enterprise when storing data in its own local severs or deploying it the cloud and introduces available solution for these issues . Security is simply protecting data against improper disclosures, modification or destruction; whether these are intentionally or accidentally caused. That is to say, a complete solution to data security issues should meet three basic requirements: confidentiality, integrity and availability. Confidentiality requires that data should be protected from unauthorized individuals or systems . Integrity refers to an assurance in the accuracy of the data. This means preventing of unauthorized or improper data modification or deletions must be engaged. Availability refers to keeping timely access to data and resources by authorized person. It also refers to the protection from malicious data denials making the system no longer available; or the recovery from hardware and software errors. The importance assigned to these requirements significantly depends on the considered environment. For example, in military environments, most attention devoted to the confidently, while integrity is the mo st relevant aspect of commercial environment. In public institutions, such as hospitals and airline companies and credit institutions in which data correction is essential in addition to the privacy constraints, a combination of integrity and confidentiality are needed. Developments in networking technology and an increase in the need of computing resources have encouraged many enterprises to outsource their storage and computing needs. This new model of computing is commonly referred to as â€Å"cloud computing†. Cloud computing is computing which leverages computer resource through the internet. It is defined by the national institute of standards and technology (NIST) as: â€Å"A model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to shared pool of configurable computing resource

Appropriate Responses to Prisoner Hunger Strike

Appropriate Responses to Prisoner Hunger Strike Imprisonment and Human Rights Discuss the appropriate response to a prisoner who goes on hunger strike. Is it ever justified to force feed a prisoner who refuses to eat? Hunger strike is a dilemma for prison authorities. It is like two sides of a coin, they have to make a choice, to save the life of the prisoners or to let them die. Prisoners hunger strike has been conducted for years in many parts of the world aimed to reach certain goals, solidarity, political struggle and to express opinions. States have the responsibilities to maintain prison security while at the same time preserving the health and well-being of prisoners on hunger strike. The relevant legal framework on state responsibility in the issue of hunger strike and force feeding is the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 2 on the Right to Life and Article 3 prohibition of torture, and for the United Kingdom Human Rights Act 1998 under the same articles. Other related provision would be Article 8 on the right to private life (ECHR). The duty of the prison authorities to preserve prisoners health and life, including conducting force administering food best described in  Leigh v Gladstone  (1909). During that period of time the Home Secretary had the obligation and the power to prevent prison suicide including force-feeding prisoners who went on hunger strike. Suicide, abetting and aiding of suicide was considered a criminal act. Lord Alverstone CJ states that it was the duty of prison officials to preserve the health of prisoners in their custody and that duty extended to force feeding In this case Article 2 prevails under the condition that suicide is an act of crime. In the case of R. , S. , A. and C v. Portugal, the European Commission on Human Rights found that it was certainly disturbing that such along time could have elapsed without the applicants being put under medical supervision There is a fine line to distinguish hunger strike from suicide, and it is not an easy task. Most philosophers argue that suicide can be accomplished by passive means, such as refusal to eat As hunger strike could lead to the possibility of death, it is still a question whether it is an act of suicide or merely an exercise of right of self determination. John Williamss hunger strike categorizations may give a clear description on the motive and the type of hunger striker. However, he also realizes that placing a prisoner within one of the categories is difficult particularly in analysing the situation when death is a possibility, although not an objective and death is the desired objective. Thus Annas observes that the courts have concluded that a refusal of treatment that inevitably leads to death is not a suicide. The most important example is the 1981 Irish hunger strike where it was carried out to achieve certain objectives and realizing that the result could lead to death. It was clear that the objective of the Irish hunger strikers was to get the political status which they desire, and the primary motive is not suicide. Dolores Dooley-Clarke pointed out an interesting question, if death resulted from prisoner political protest, could it be a suicide or murder? She elaborates that none of the above fits hunger strike categorisation. In the case of Irish hunger strike and other similar prisoner political protest, Dolores Dooley-Clarke suggests that the capacity to plan a hunger strike and state ones intention (†¦) is not characteristics of all suicide attempts-some suicides depend on impulse or diminished awareness of the full implications of the act. Thus, many psychiatrists support the statement that suicide does not fits to the categorisation of hunger strike. Robert Daly, professor of psychiatry at University College, Cork, believes that nothing is achieved or clarified by simply equating hunger strikers with attempted suicides related to schizophrenia or chronic drug addiction. In line with the above statement, British Medical Association states that a hunger strike lead to death cannot be regarded as suicide. Thus, it is tricky to implement the correct treatment to the prisoner who goes on hunger strike where motive could be deceitful. As Annas elaborates, motivation is the most crucial distinction between patients who refuse treatment and prisoners who refuse to eat. Because the latter generally seek either to manipulate the prison system for their own benefit or to commit suicide. If the motive is solely to die due to there is no other alternative method of suicide other than starving himself to death, than the suicidal motive is clear. If that is the case, the prison authorities have the power to intervene and save ones life. This responsibility to prevent prisoner suicides was considered by the House of Lords, in the words of Lord Hope: The duty of those who are entrusted with his custody is to take reasonable care for his safety while he remains in their hands. If it is known that he may engage in self mutilation or suicide while he is in their custody, their duty is to take reasonable care to prevent him from engaging in these acts so that he remains free from harm until he is set at liberty. This duty is owed to the prisoner if there is at risk, irrespective of whether he is mentally disordered or of sound mind. It arises simply from the act that he is being detained by them in custody and is known to be at risk of engaging in self-mutilation or of committing suicide. However, it became a complicated issue since most of hunger strikers have a specific objective, to protest or to change policy and demand their request to be heard or fulfilled by the competent authorities. Prison authorities rely on doctor or medical officer to decide whether the prisoners should be fed artificially, on the other hand, doctors have certain medical ethics not to force-feed them and must respect prisoners autonomy and right to accept or refuse medical care. World Medical Association Malta Declaration declared that force-feeding is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration states that doctors must not undertake force-feeding under any circumstances: Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially. The decision as to the capacity of the prisoner to form such a judgment should be confirmed by at least one other independent physician. The consequences of the refusal of nourishment shall be explained by the physician to the prisoner. Prisoners right to be informed on the risk that may cause from such treatment is protected by Article 8 ECHR. Force-feeding likely to be seen as inhuman degrading and amount to torture due to the painful method carried out in its procedures. During the Greek civil war force-feeding caused horror and led the prisoners to stop the hunger strike, not only it is terrifying but it could also result to death. In recent case, the horrific image of force-feeding again could be seen on the hunger striker prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. As Lawrence Altman stated, force-feeding is likely to involve dragging the prisoners to the site of feeding, and using physical restraints to present the removal of the feeding tube. Placing the tube may also be tricky and could result in fatal complications should it enter the trachea Taking into account the high stakes place into the shoulder of the medical officer, their ethical integrity must also be protected. The relation between prisoner hunger striker patient and the medical authorities thus become complicated. State has the obligations to preserve ones life and to prevent suicide, and at the same time to respect absolute right of freedom from torture. In the case of  Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine, it was held that there had been a violation to Article 3 of ECHR, the force feeding of the applicant, without any medical justification (†¦. ), constituted treatment of such a severe character warranting the characterizations of torture. The medical necessity of force-feeding emphasized in this case. Looking into the judgement, it seems that force-feeding indeed can be justified in certain way. The term medical necessity amounted to a way for the prison authorities to place the burden on the medical officers to make the decision. This could be portrayed in the response of Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins (1975) in the case of force-feeding against Ian Brady: The responsible medical officer has decided, on the basis of his professional judgment that Ian Brady should be fed artificially. (†¦) I could not interpose myself between the clinical judgment of a doctor and his patient. The court found that there has been no violation to Article 3 of ECHR in the case of  A v Germany. In  A v Germany, the commission underlined that force-feeding is even obligatory if an obvious danger for the individuals life exist. Given the obligations of states parties to secure the right to life under Article 2 of ECHR, the commission justified the act of force-feeding. Personal mentality of the hunger striker thus become a focal point for doctors and physician to determine whether the person has the mental capability to make his own judgment and decision to hopefully end his actions in a reasonable time. In  Herczegfalvy v Austria, force feeding of a prisoner was justified on the basis of therapeutic and medical necessity. Mr Herczegfalvy was diagnosed suffering from paranoia  querulans, in the view of medical judgement he was incapable to make the decision for himself. Regardless his refusal to consent any medical treatment and examination that would be conducted upon him, the court on the above circumstances found no violations to Article 3 of ECHR against force administering food. Article 3 on prohibition on torture and Article 2 on the right to life (ECHR) conflicted with one another in this matter. In the case of hunger strike, medical treatment plays a key role, it has dilemmas when the treatment contrary to the patients wish, no consent given from the patient, and how far is such treatment could be amounted to violate one person dignity thus subject to inhuman, degrading treatment, and torture. Doctors have freedom to engage clinical judgment to its patients, however as Dolores pointed out, it becomes a dilemma as the freedom of clinical judgment is a two-edged sword: the ethical beliefs of the doctor may conflict with a prisoners patient expressed wishes not to be treated. Prison authorities and medical officers must in any way approach the hunger striker and inform them on the risk for pursuing hunger strike or the risk on force-feeding, here the right to respect the private life (Article 8) should be clearly engaged in situations concerning disclosure of information that will enable individuals to make decisions that may have an impact on their health. In 1981 Irish hunger strike, the British Government decided not to force-feed the hunger striker. Margaret Thatcher refused to give any concessions and stated We are not prepared to consider special category status for certain groups of people serving sentences for crime. Crime is crime is crime, it is not political. 10 hunger strikers died to defend their five demands. In  Robb v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the wish of the hunger striker, who had a sound of mind and the capacity to understand the risk and the consequences of his decisions, to refuse the medical treatment should be respected. J Thorpe stated: The first principle is that every persons body is inviolate and proof against any form of physical molestation. (†¦) Secondly, the principle of self-determination requires that respect must be given to the wishes of the patient. So that if an adult of sound mind refuses, however unreasonably, to consent to treatment or care by which his life would or might be prolonged the doctors responsible for his care must give effect to his wishes even though they do not consider it to be in his interest to do so. In contras to  Leigh v Gladstone  (1909) case, in  Robb  case the secretary of state was granted the declarations that medical and prison staff could lawfully abstain from their responsibility from taking force artificial food or prolonging the life of the patient in the basis of the patients refusal to the medical treatment. Here, Andrew Grubb suggested that in view of the above resulted to the decision in  Robb  case that theres no obligation for the prison authorities to intervene. State has the interest in preventing suicide and preservation of life. In  Airedale NHS Trust v Bland  refusal of a medical treatment is not a suicide or aiding a suicide. Sir Thomas Bingham M.R pointed out when the patient was adult and of sound mind, a doctor discontinues artificial feeding after three years and the patient dies. Has the doctor aided and abetted suicide? I think the answer plainly is that he has not. In  Re:W, the prisoner patient concern with a sound mind has the mental capacity to make decisions on his behalf and therefore his refusal to medical treatment will be respected even if it would lead to his death. As elaborated in the above cases, it was found that the right of an individual to refuse treatment strongly outweighs the interest in the preservation of life. Similar to the above cases, in the United States, Supreme Court of California in the case of  Thor v Superior Court  held that a competent patient (prisoner) has the right to accept or to refuse medical treatment even at the risk of death. Here, the right to exercise self-determination prevails in a condition of a competent patient. In R. v.Collins and Ashworth Hospital Authority ex p. Brady, Brady argues that the force-feeding was unlawful taking into account that he is mentally competent. As mentioned on the above case laws, a competent prisoner cannot lawfully be force-fed. However, in Bradys case, the hospital experts observation on his mental incapacity justified the lawfulness of the force-feeding conducted upon him. Personal motivation, mental capacity, and the consent of the prisoner hunger strikers is the main points that would be taking into account for the prison authorities and the medical staff to make their decision. Force-feeding of the prisoner who goes on hunger strike should be carried out in accordance to the points above. Motivation and sound of mind of the hunger striker determine the objective of such actions to differentiate it from suicide. As in  Robb  case, the prison authorities and medical staff are avoid from unlawful act for being abstain of conducting a medical treatment in the basis of refusal of prisoner with a sound mind. While in  Bradys case, force-feeding was conducted in concern of the prisoners motivation to commit suicide by starving himself to death. In regards to the patients with a sound of mind, the right of self determination prevails, and therefore to administer food in force is not justified. However, in certain cases such as Bradys, force-feeding is justified in the basis of preserving ones life. In view of prohibition of torture, it is clear that force-feeding is so horrific thus lead to inhuman and degrading treatment, therefore prison authorities and medical officers should inform the hunger striker patients on the risk of such action. Article 2 on the right to life would only prevails Article 3 on prohibition of torture if theres a definite reason on the basis of medical necessity and the inability of the patients to make a decision for them. In regards of cases where death is the primary objective, such as  Bradys, preserving ones life comes first before self determination. The prisoners right to refuse any medical treatment or force-feeding should be respected, nevertheless it should be noted that medical necessity and mental incapacity would play a key role on making the decision to outweigh that right. Bibliography Gudmundur Alfredson and Katarina TomaÃ… ¡evski (eds),  A Thematic Guide To Documents on Health and Human Rights  (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) (1998) Human Rights Watch, Prison Conditions in the Soviet Union: A Report of Facilities in Russia and Azerbaidzhan (New York: Human Rights Watch) (1991) Kieran McEvoy, Paramilitary Imprisonment in Northern Ireland: Resistance, Management, and Release (New York: Oxford University Press) (2004) Human Rights Watch, Africa Watch Prison Project,  Prison Conditions in South Africa  (New York: Human Rights Watch) (1994) Fran Lisa Buntman,  Robben Island and Prisoner Resistance to Apartheid  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) (2003) John Wadham, Helen Mountfield, and Anna Edmundson,  Blackstones Guide to The Human Rights Act 1998  (Oxford: Oxford University Press) (2003), p. 49. Barbara Harvey and John Marston,  Cases and Commentary on Tort (4th  Edition)  (Essex: Pearson Education Limited) (2000) European Convention on Human Rights and its Five Protocols, available at http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art8 As cited in  R v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Robb  [1995] 1 All ER 677, available at http://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/legal/results/pubTreeViewDoc.do?nodeId=TAANAAEACEpubTreeWidth=23% Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in cooperation with the International Bar Association,  Professional Training Series No, 9 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers(New York: United Nations Publications) (2003), p. 345 Norman L. Cantor George C. Thomas,  The Legal Bounds of Physician Conduct Hastening Death in the USA, in Yoram Distein (eds), Israel Yearbook on Human Rights (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) (2000) John Williams, Hunger-Strikes: A Prisoners Right or a Wicked Folly,  The Howard Journal  vol. 40 no. 3 (2001) George J. Annas, Law and the Life Sciences: Prison Hunger Strikes: Why the Motive Matters,  The Hastings Center Report  vol.12 no. 6 (1982), p.21-22. Dolores Dooley-Clarke, Medical Ethics and Political Protest,  The Hastings Centre Report  vol. 11 no.6 (1981) British Medical Association, Medicine Betrayed: The Participation of Doctors in Human Rights Abuses (London: Zed Books) (1998) George J. Annas, Loc. cit British Medical Association, Loc. cit World Medical Association Declaration on Hunger Strikes (1991) (1992) (2006), Article 21, available at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/h31.htm The World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo, Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment (1975), Article 5, available at http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htm Polymeris Voglis,  Becoming a Subject: Political Prisoners during the Greek Civil War  (New York: Berghahn Books) (2002), p. 193. David Rose,  Scandal of force-fed prisoners,  The Observer, January 8, 2006, available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/08/usa.guantanamo Lawrence Altman as cited by George J. Annas, Law and the Life Sciences: Prison Hunger Strikes: Why the Motive Matters,  The Hastings Center Report  vol.12 no. 6 (1982), p.22 Nevmerzhitsky v Ukraine  , available at >http://www.westlaw.co.uk Jenkins, as cited by John Williams, op. cit, p.285  A v Germany,  available at http://www.westlaw.co.uk Ibid. Herczegfalvy v Austria,  available at http://www.westlaw.co.uk Dolores Dooley Clarke, op. cit, p.7 Jane Wright,  Tort Law and Human Rights  (Oregon: Hart Publishing) (2001), p. 66 http://www.inac.org R v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Robb  , op. cit Ibid. see http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/3/2/189.pdf As cited in Rosamund Scott,  Rights, Duties and the Body: Law and Ethics of the Maternal-Fetal Conflict  (Portland Oregon: Hart Publishing) (2002), p. 136

Dantes Lucifer: The Denial of the Word :: The Divine Comedy

The four words constituting the first line of Inferno 34, however, are and are not Virgil's own words. On the most obvious level, these words are his own in that the text attributes them to him. At the same time, they are not his, since they are a quotation of the first line of a hymn by Venantius Fortunatus.3 And yet, the last word, inferni, must be attributed to Virgil under all respects, for he utters it without borrowing it from the hymn that Venantius Fortunatus wrote in honor of the cross and Christ. Through Virgil, Dante the auctor, therefore, rewrites and parodies this sacred hymn at the conclusion of the infernal cantica exactly when the two wayfarers approach Lucifer.4 Although neither name is mentioned, both are conjured up. Inferno 34 thus begins by invoking a contrastive binomial, Christ and Lucifer. The irony inherent in the Christian hymn's adaptation for the purpose of announcing Lucifer's appearance to the Pilgrim stems, most strikingly, from subverting a text written for a sacred purpose and now employing it for a profane one.5 No longer the sacred poem ( «Vexilla regis prodeunt ») written by a Christian poet, the new and profane poem ( «Vexilla regis prodeunt inferni ») is proclaimed by a pagan, is dedicated, as it were, to Lucifer, and is inscribed within the book of the Commedia. Whereas the Christian Venantius writes a poem to his king, Christ, the pagan Virgil, unable to write a poem for the king whose law he opposed (Inf. 1:125), intones a poem to his de facto king, Lucifer, and he does so by borrowing and perverting a sacred text. In fine, Dante the auctor records this new hymn to Lucifer in his text, as if he were the scribe of Virgil the poet. This opposition between Christ and Lucifer is further emphasized by another textual element, which focuses on nomen. The Inferno, in fact, is the text where the word Dite __ Lucifer __ is inscribed and where the word Christ is never recorded. Thus a written sign characterizes Lucifer in the first cantica, whereas the text's silence typifies Christ. As we shall see, however, the meaning of this verbal presence and absence is ultimately turned around: Lucifer's presence becomes a failure, whereas Christ's absence signifies a victory. As a sign of his textual presence throughout the first cantica, Lucifer, the character whom the Pilgrim contemplates in the nethermost pit of the universe, is designated by means of various words and circumlocutions.

Interpersonal Conflict in Movies (American Beauty) Essay

Interpersonal conflict is â€Å"a struggle that occurs when two people cannot agree on a way to meet their needs† (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 1999, p.248). Interpersonal conflict can be of love, spirituality, morals etc. In American Beauty (film), interpersonal conflicts are shown as reason to destroy household. Household that appears to be perfect and imaginary from outside, are moth-eaten from inside, owing its failure to interpersonal conflict within the family. Many characters versus character conflicts are shown like interpersonal conflict between Lester Burnham and her daughter Jane, between Angela and Jane, between Col Fitts and his son Ricky, unhappy marriages of Lester and Carolyn and that of Col Fitts and his silent wife, but the conflict between Lester Burnham and his wife Carolyn is of much importance as it was not handled properly.. Three types of conflict are shown in the Lester’s and Carolyn’s interpersonal conflict, namely pseudo conflict, simple con flict and ego conflict. Lester Burnham and his wife Carolyn are living in a pseudo environment where both hate the life in which they are living since the start of the movie. This conflict somehow seemed to last throughout the movie and was not handled properly regardless of the efforts made by the couple. The conflict between them was attributed to the egocentric attitude of Lester and Carolyn towards each other, seeds of lust and adultery, materialistic and pessimistic approach of Carolyn towards happiness and Lester’s lost of interest in the family. The couple should have encouraged healthy discussions in the family and should have avoided the show-off of fake life .As Scott suggests that conflict are more than just debates, or negotiations, in that they are an escalation of everyday competition and discussion into an arena of hostile or emotion provoking encounters that strain personal or interpersonal tranquility or both. During this conflict, they did not even realize how far it was taking them from their daughter Jane. Giving proper time to their daughter and family would have stopped the conflict from escalating. Seeds of adultery, cheating and lust took them away from each other. Carolyn viewed Lester as a loser. Carolyn view materialistic objects as success and Lester sees happiness as success. Lester’s normal life with a monotonous dead-end job and Carolyn’s hard luck in real estate because of pseudo-competition buddy â€Å"The King† Kane was depressing for the couple. The conflict within the couple multiplies day by day. Their physical distances added fuel to fire. Both are sexually frustrated and this was evident in routine fights even fight over song played during the dinner. However, intimate relation with each other would have protected Lester from his interest in Angela and that of Carolyn’s in Kane. Given that couple had focused on the inner beauty of life before than their focus on materialistic beauty (Lester finally realized), the interpersonal conflict would have resolved.

Business Studies with Specialisms Essay

Discuss the characteristics of the scientific method which makes it superior over other methods as a means of obtaining new and reliable knowledge Introduction Marketing research has borrowed liberally from other disciplines; this is not surprising because research methodologies and techniques have application over many fields of study. Like other emerging disciplines, marketing research theory has been developed by creative adaptation rather than blind adoption. The extent to which marketing theory has been built on borrowed concepts was noted some years ago by the Marketing Science Institute of America. Historically, most sciences started by borrowing their conceptual approach and general theoretical ideas from other sciences. Joyce1 has observed that: Market research is not a practice or study isolated from other practices or studies. It has drawn freely from certain expert academic fields and will no doubt continue to do so. Further, market research organisations make use of people with expert, specialist training – especially from those fields known broadly as ‘the social sciences ‘ – both as staff members and consultants. It took a long while to determine how is the world better investigated. One way is to talk about it. For example: Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, stated that males and females have different number of teeth, without bothering to check; he then provided long arguments as to why this is the way things ought to be. This method is unreliable: to determine whether a statement is correct it requires evidence. Debating over a subject or putting an argument forward does not qualify as proof. Consideration of the history of research methods requires a look at the history of science. What is Science? A basic question asked by many and answered in almost as many ways. Early roots of science begin with Plato (427-347 B.C.) and his search for everlasting truth and reality. James Randi2 defines science as: ‘a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence. What’s left is magic. And it doesn’t work.’ We can define science as a methodical approach to the acquisition of knowledge. This important word distinguishes how a scientist works from how people learn about the world. Ross Koning3 has some personal observations: ‘Creation must have occurred because life was not always here. Science is merely saying creation was not sudden and is still on-going. Science does not deny existence of God, God just cannot be tested scientifically. Scientists are commonly very religious. Science is the acquisition of truth.’ Modern science is an amazing phenomenon, and curiosity of how it works will continue to occupy people’s minds. The Scientific Method On a broad level, science is a methodology for attaining knowledge, where knowledge is a form of belief distinct from mere opinion or uninformed guesswork. Science is not the knowledge gained through the approach; hence, knowledge can be gained through a variety of ways. Science seeks out better ways of representing our experiences. The experiences and their representation in a system of beliefs are termed, respectively, observation and theory. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, the aim is through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. A better approach is to do experiments and perform careful observations. The results of this approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic. It is from these ideas that the scientific method was developed. What is the â€Å"scientific method†? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for scrutinizing the truth from lies and delusion. It is based upon evidence rather than belief. This distinguishes science from faith. The scientific method revolves around the following key steps: 1. Observe some aspect of the universe 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed 3. Use the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations 4. Perform experimental tests of the predictions and modify hypothesis 5. Return to step 3 to ensure of no discrepancies between theory and experiment. The scientific method is founded upon direct observation of the world around us. A scientist looks critically and attempts to avoid all sources of bias in this observation. But more than looking, a scientist measures to quantify the observations; this helps in avoiding bias. Which of these lines is longer? The both lines are the same length, though human bias might generate belief that one is longer than the other. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experiment when testing a hypothesis or a theory. The next part of the scientific method is to form a hypothesis. This is merely an educated guess. You examine the literature on the subject and gather as much knowledge from books as possible to begin to arrive at an answer. This tentative answer†¦this best educated guess†¦is your hypothesis. There is one important aspect to the hypothesis. It must be rejectable. There must be a way to test the possible answer to try to make it fail. If you design an untestable hypothesis, then science cannot be used to help you decide if it is right or not. For example: you hypothesis that ‘God is awake’. There is no way to test your hypothesis scientifically; therefore, there is no way to make it fail. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory, which then provides rational statements that explain a phenomena. This theory produces explanations to observations and predictions are made. To a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. On the other hand, if the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. Prediction is a way to put the hypothesis to a test. The prediction has three parts: 1. If my hypothesis is true†¦ 2. Then_____ should happen 3. When_____ is manipulated The manipulation is what you knew would likely falsify your hypothesis. If this prediction holds then you will not be able to reject your hypothesis. If this prediction does not hold then you will reject your hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experiment tests. In every experimental science, ‘experiment is supreme’ and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic. The necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications, do not qualify as scientific theories. One of the key factors of scientific method is that the theory must be falsifable. Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994): Falsificationism (1993) Demarcation Criteria: Science is divided from psuedo-science or â€Å"myth† by making statements which are potentially falsifiable. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories, however, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges. A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and experiments which anyone can reproduce. Most experiments and observations are repeated many times. If the original claims are not verified the process returns to the origin of such discrepancies. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true (adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically, this question translates into issues if scientific methodology: how can one develop theories or models that are better than competing theories? It is possible to construct a useful and reliable model for understanding scientific reasoning, known as the â€Å"Hypothetico-Deductive† model. The heart of the â€Å"Hypothetico-Deductive† model is deductive reasoning (induction plays a role primarily in generating laws about observations that are then deduced from theory, such as the law of multiple proportions). According to the H-D model, hypotheses and theories are sets of general principles that are said to explain and predict observable results. A theory is successful insofar as observable consequences can be deduced from those general principles and statements. When a positive instance of a predicted observation occurs, it is said to confirm that theory. Deductive and Inductive Thinking In logic, two broad methods of reasoning are referred to: the deductive and inductive approaches. Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a ‘top-down’ approach. The process may begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to address the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses with specific data – a confirmation (or not) of our original theories. Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, it is often known as a â€Å"bottom-up† approach. In inductive reasoning, the process begins with specific observations and measures, then patterns and regularities are detected, formulating some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories. Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning. Deductive reasoning is narrower in nature and is concerned with testing or confirming hypotheses. Even though a particular study may look like it’s purely deductive (e.g., an experiment designed to test the hypothesized effects of some treatment on some outcome), most social research involves both inductive and deductive reasoning processes at some time in the project. The two graphs above can be assembled into a single circular one that continually cycles from theories down to observations and back up to theories. Even in the most constrained experiment, the researchers may observe patterns in the data that lead them to develop new theories. Comparison of Properties Deduction 1. In a valid deductive argument, all of the content of the conclusion is present, at least implicitly, in the premises. Deduction is nonampliative 2. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Valid deduction is necessarily truth preserving. 3. If new premises are added to a valid deductive argument (and none of its premises are changed or deleted) the argument remains valid. Deduction is erosion-proof. 4. Deductive validity is an all-or-nothing matter; validity does not come in degrees. An argument is totally valid, or it is invalid Induction 1. Induction is ampliative. The conclusion of an inductive argument has content that goes beyond the content of its premises. 2. A correct inductive argument may have true premises and a false conclusion. Induction is not necessarily truth preserving. 3. New premises may completely undermine a strong inductive argument. Induction is not erosion-proof. 4. Inductive arguments come in different degrees of strength. In some inductions the premises support the conclusions more strongly than in others. Source: Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Merilee H. Salmon, John Earman, Clark Glymour, James G. Lennox, Peter Machamer, J.E. McGuire, John D. Norton, Wesley C. Salmon, and Kenneth H. Schaffner. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. Available: http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm Non-Scientific Sources 1. Common Sense People often refer to their knowledge and skills as common sense. It is good sense in everyday affairs. For example: The old farmer didn’t have much education but had always gotten along on a lot of common sense. He is hopeful that in the event of another war the world powers may summon enough common sense to avoid mass atomic destruction. Having a practical intelligence in different situations can derive knowledge that is of immense value. This practical intelligence has been gained naturally from the individual’s experience throughout their life and cannot be applied to any education or training. The experiences that an individual has been through during their life may affect their ability to produce unbiased knowledge. 2. Trial and Error Trial and Error is a method of learning by trying out different responses to a new situation until one response is successful. The desired result is then played on for future use and noted by the researcher. It can be quite a time consuming activity, however, similar problems in the future may benefit from the experiment. 3. Tenacity Tenacity is the determination to continue what you are doing. It means that the knowledge derived from previous studies must be recognised as it holds true value for a long period of time. 4. Intuition Intuition is a psychological and philosophical term which designates the process of immediate apprehension or perception of an actual fact, being or relation between two terms and its results. As an element of educational method intuition means the grasp of knowledge by concrete, experimental or intellectual, ways of apprehension. The importance of intuition as a process and element of knowledge is easily seen if we observe that it is intuition which furnishes us with the first experimental data as well as with the primary concepts and the fundamental judgements or principles which are the primitive elements and the foundation of every speculation. 5. Authority An expert provides knowledge on a particular subject, whereby subordinates accept the idea or concept as a respected source of knowledge. 6. Rationalism Rationalism is a philosophical movement which attempts to study the universe using reason, in the form of deductive and mathematical methods, rather than sense experience. Descartes, for example, tried to deduce what God’s world is like from the axioms of divine existence and goodness. When sourcing knowledge rationalism can be misleading when it is used alone, however, improving the accuracy of the principles associated with the subject will result in better sourcing. 7. Empiricism Any view which bases our knowledge, or the materials from which it is constructed, on experience through the traditional five senses. It is opposed to rationalism and denies that we have any a priori knowledge or innate ideas: we owe all our concepts to experience of the world. A priori knowledge is any kind of knowledge that is in no way derived from sense experience, observation or experiment. What might be called the classical empiricist view is associated especially with Locke, the first of the so-called British Empiricists, and his successors Berkeley and Hume. Empiricism has its roots in the idea that all we can know about the world is what the world cares to tell us; we must observe it neutrally and dispassionately, and any attempt on our part to mould or interfere with the process of receiving this information can only lead to distortion and arbitrary imaging. Conclusion The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In comparison with the non-scientific sources the emphasis here is that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirements of systematic experimentation. We use specific methods because they are objective, public and can give repeatable results. The question of how science is so successful at improving understanding is hardly every presented as a question at all. No matter what happens, you will learn something. Science is not only about getting ‘the answer’. Scientists who study extremely complex problems can spend a lifetime and not find ‘the answer’. Even so, their results may eventually play a part in completing the full picture of understanding. Animal and children may learn about whatever they pay attention to, and so do scientists.