As a scientist, you are a Professional writer. Lecture II Academic Writing As a scientist, you are a Professional writer. Lecture II Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

We argued that «the science is not a self- explanatory concept We argued that «the science is not a self- explanatory concept. It’s definition and also it’s explanation is a problematic for theoritical approaches. We should remember that these theoritical approaches construct the science policies which are directly effect the actual and constitutional science. We asked several questions like «how and why does this mechanism (science aka scientific research / thinking) work, and why those outside it or those similar to it do not work?» or «is there a link between the success criteria and the criteria of demarcation of science?» in our last lecture. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

If success as a scientist is not simply a function of the quality of the ideas we hold in our heads, or of the data we hold in our hands, what is the success criterion for us? Is there a link between the success criteria of academic writing and the criteria of demarcation of science? If there is a distinction between a theory (which means scientific explanation) and a story about the reality what is the criterion of the distinction between them? Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

What are we exactly looking for? Let's explain it with an analogy. It was in the 14th century that scientists discovered that litmus, a mixture of colored organic compounds obtained from lichen, turns red in acid solutions and blue in alkaline solutions and, thus, can be used as an acid-base indicator. Six centuries later, people began using litmus test figuratively. It can now refer to any single factor that establishes the true character of something or causes it to be assigned to one category or another. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration We are looking for an conceptual indicator that can be used as a test for scientificness.

Why are we looking for the indicator of science? Imagine being alive when Albert Einstein was developing his theories of relativity. Or wittnessing the birth of psychology, as Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis took over scientific mainstream. These are amazing theories. They were amazing in those years too. However, when these theories were developed in the 1900's, their scientific character was doubtful. In those years everyone can accept that they are incredible. But that did not mean that everyone accepted these theories as science. We have to make an important distinction between science and pseudo-science. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

The question of the science indicator (in other words question of demarcation) is also involves an another question. When you are asking for demarcation, you also ask what the distinction between a scientific article and a pseudo-scientific (or non-scientific) article is. And at that point you don't have to imagine yourself in 1900's (or at any time when a great theory is born) or in a field of theoric physics and psycohology. You have come face to face with this question since the beginning of your science education and you will always contend with this question as a scientist (as a reader or a writer) in the future Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

IS THIS THE CASE? Let’s remember the questions: When should a theory (or a paper) ranked as scientific? Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory (or a paper)? PAY ATTENTION: These questions is not about «when is a theory true?» or «when is a theory acceptable?» They are about the «zero-point emergence» of scientificness. The most widely accepted answer to this problem is that science is distinguished from pseudo-science (or non-science) by its emprical method which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. The scientist makes observations and does experiments. He / she collects data from them and then establishes theories by induction. In this case, the article (or the work) is scientific if it contains a lot of data collected through experiment and observation. IS THIS THE CASE? Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

KARL POPPER formulated his problem as of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method. Pseudo-emprical one is a a method which although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. This method may be exemplified by astrology, with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation on horoscopes an on biographies. The equation that more data is equal to more science is not true. Because if this equation is true, astrology will be a science. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

MORE DATA ≠ MORE SCIENCE or MORE CONFIRMATION ≠ MORE SCIENTIFIC The equation that more data is equal to more science is not true. Because if this equation is true, astrology will be a science. MORE DATA ≠ MORE SCIENCE or MORE CONFIRMATION ≠ MORE SCIENTIFIC Just remember Eddington’s eclipse observations which in 1919 brought the first important confirmation of Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Alternative theory of gravitation is Newton's theory and it confirmed by countless experiments and observations. NEWTON’S THEORY versus EINSTEIN’S THORY Now we all know that Newton was wrong. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

Countless confirmation of the theory HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? Countless confirmation of the theory Only One confirmation (valid for 1919) Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

Let’s ask the question in a different way. IN THAT CASE, WE CAN SAY THAT «CONFIRMATION» IS NOT A DEMARCATION CRITERION FOR SCIENCE Let’s ask the question in a different way. What is wrong with pseudo-science? Why is the pseudo-science so different from scientific theories, especially from the theory of relativity? This is not a question of whether mathematical physics’ theories are more precise than the sociological or psychological theory. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

MORE DATA ≠ MORE SCIENCE MORE CONFIRMATION ≠ MORE SCIENTIFIC What the essence of the question is neither the problem of truth nor the problem of exactness or measurability. Pseudo-scientific theories (or Works) have a lot in common with primitive myths than science. When you accept the theory you begin to see confirmed instances everywhere (like acceptance of a myth). The World is full of verifications of theory. Remember the equation: MORE DATA ≠ MORE SCIENCE or MORE CONFIRMATION ≠ MORE SCIENTIFIC Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

Then what is it that we are looking for? Then we have eliminated the verifiability as the criterion of science in our investigation. This means that verifiability is not a criterion for a good paper/article. And also verifiability or confirmedness is not a determiner for academic writing principles. Then what is it that we are looking for? * We are looking for a decisive indicator for the limitation of science. * We are looking for a success criteria for a scientific article. * And we are also looking for a set of epistemological rules that define academic writing principles. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

So we are looking for the same thing under different titles. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

To be continued.. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration