ACADEMIC WRITING Lecture III As a scientist, you are a Professional writer. Lecture III

Conclusions of the first two lecture 1. We are searching for a demarcation criterion for science. Because, there is a distinction between a theory (which means scientific explanation) and a story about the reality. The function of the demarcation criterion is to give a conceptual tool for making the distinction between them (the science and non-science). This criterion is an conceptual indicator that can be used as a test for scientificness. (Like a litmus test in chemistry) 2. There is a link between the success criteria of academic writing and the criteria of demarcation of science. So when you ask for a demarcation criterion, you also ask what is the distinction between a scientific article and a pseudo-scientific (or non-scientific) article. 3. There is a link between the success criteria which is connected with the demarcation question in academic writing and the scientific writing principles. Scientific writing principles includes the scientific writing rules.

The success criterion of academic writing The Scientific Writing Principles The Scientific Writing Rules The demarcation criterion of science If we wanted to know which subjects are generally accepted as science, we would probably find a fairly sharp and clear division between two categories. But we are interested in more than that! We want to understand the general characteristics of science that are different from pseudoscience

Proposal 1: Science is distinguished by its empirical method Proposal 1: Science is distinguished by its empirical method. That is, science is distinguished from pseudoscience by its use of observational data in making predictions. Objection: Astrology appeals to observation, but is not a science. Proposal 2: Scientific theories, like Einstein's, are more precise in its predictions that astrology. Objection: While it is true that pseudosciences do often protect themselves from refutation by making vague or ambiguous predictions, that is not always the case. Sometimes the 'predictions' of pseudo scientific ‘fiction’ will able to be precise enough for the purpose. Proposal 3: Science is explanatory, whereas pseudoscience is not. Objection: If you buy into the auxiliary assumptions in any pseudo-scientific ‘fiction’ then ‘the theory’ explains the phenomena perfectly well Because, in these cases pseudo-science is always using the past data to predict the present. Proposal 4: Science is distinguished from pseudoscience by its verifications, or confirmation. Objection: "The world was full of verifications of all theories." Popper’s Proposal: Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

We are looking for a criteria that makes all of these possible: Scientists have the ability to pose questions and resolve them in a way that critics, philosophers, historians cannot. Scientific theories are tested experimentally, compared to reality and those which does not comply with reality are rejected. Science, more than any other mode of knowledge, yields durable insights into the nature of things. The science addresses questions that can be answered, at least in principle, given a reasonable amount of time and resources.

IN SUM, the natural as well as the social sciences always start from problems, from the fact that something inspires amazement in us, as the Greek philosophers used to say. To solve these problems, the sciences use fundamentally the same method that common sense employs, the method of trial and error. To be more precise, it is the method of trying out solutions to our problem and then discarding the false ones as erroneous. This method assumes that we work with a large number of experimental solutions. One solution after another is put to the test and eliminated.

2 formation of tentative theories; 1 the original problem; 2 formation of tentative theories; 3 attempts at elimination through critical discussion, including experimental testing; 4 the new problems that arise from the critical discussion of our theories. Let's adapt this scheme to academic writing principles. But before that part, please watch the video on the link below https://youtu.be/-X8Xfl0JdTQ Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER , DEFINITION OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER What is an academic (scientific) article (paper)? And what is the article's purpose or function in science? A scientific paper is a written and published report describing original research results. An acceptable primary scientific publication must be the first disclosure containing sufficient information to enable peers To assess observations To repeat experiments To evaluate intellectual processes Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

«An acceptable primary scientific publication» must be «the first disclosure». What does these means? Certainly, first disclosure of new research data (or a new theory about reality) often takes place via oral presentation at a scientific meeting. But the most effective first disclosure is accomplished only when the disclosure takes a form that allows the peers of the author (either now or in the future) to fully comprehend and use that which is disclosed. To fully comprehend means that to fully test it. In epistemological dimension, this means that to compare the data or the theory or the hypothesis with the reality's itself. The method of comparation is to try to falsify them by experiments. The article gives material for this process. So it offers a new hypothesis or theory that you can test. Or it is a report about a testing process on an existing theory or hypothesis. And / or also it is a report about the outcome of this tests.

Primary publication is The first publication of original research results, İn a form whereby peers of the author can repeat the experiments and test the conculusions, in a journal or other source document readily available within the scientific community.

* A scientific paper (article) is a particular kind of document containing certain specified kinds of information in a prescribed (IMRAD) order. This order determined by the principals of academic (scientific) writing. A scientific paper is organized to meet the needs of valid publication. It is, or should be, highly stylized, with distinctive and clearly evident component parts. IMRAD  Introduction / Methods / Results / Discussion

An indicator (a demarcation criterion) for scientificness. Please try to remember that what we were searching for in our first lectures. An indicator (a demarcation criterion) for scientificness. A Question for this point of the quest: Why is falsifiability an important part of a scientific hypothesis? That is, why do scientists emphasize trying to disprove a hypothesis instead of trying to prove a hypothesis? Falsifiability is an important characteristic of a scientific hypothesis for a few reasons. One reason is that it may take an infinite number of confirming observations to prove a general statement true (known as "the problem of inductive reasoning" or "the problem of induction.") However, it can take only one counter-observation to falsify the hypothesis. [Remember the test of the hypothesis that "All swans are white." You would want to look for the black swan.] Another reason that falsifiability is important is "confirmation bias," seeing confirming instances and ignoring contradictory ones. If a hypothesis is falsifiable, then the scientist should be rigorously trying to falsify it rather than verify it by seeking out supporting evidence. In essence, falsification helps keep scientists honest. A third reason is that falsifiability is a characteristic of a hypothesis that is making a claim about reality. If a hypothesis is making a claim about reality, then reality has the potential to show that the hypothesis is wrong. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable in principle, then it is making a claim about something unreal. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

2 formation of tentative theories; 1 the original problem; 2 formation of tentative theories; A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation of a significant body of facts and observed phenomena. 3 attempts at elimination through critical discussion, including experimental testing; If a scientific claim (hypothesis, theory, law, or even fact) is falsifiable it is able to be proven wrong. If a claim is falsifiable, a person can imagine a study whose results could potentially prove the claim to be incorrect. A theory can be mathematical, verbal, or both, and it may contain multiple explanatory ideas. Scientists should be able to make novel and testable predictions based on a theory. So a theory's broadest ideas have not been falsified, although its details may have been modified over time as a result of testing. Theories have generally withstood rigorous testing, so they are not considered to be tentative claims.

The reader of the article should be able to test the hypothesis of the articles. How does he / she can test the hypothesis? The hypothesis should be comparable with facts. But this kind of comparability is based on falsifiability . What does it mean for a hypothesis or a theory to be falsifiable? If a scientific claim (hypothesis, theory, law, or even fact) is falsifiable it is able to be proven wrong. This means that in principle there should be at least one fact (empirical evidence) that can be falsify the hypothesis. That fact's potential presence gives the possibility of testability to the hypothesis. If you can detect that fact experimentally, it means that the hypothesis is false. In other words, if you can't detect it, that means that the hypothesis is not false for that moment. But the potentiality of the testability of that hypothesis will be still going. It can be still possible to proceed to another phase of searching the fact which is falsifying the hypothesis. For this very reason articles' influences on any scientific field can be go on for years. A article can be dominant for that field, because every scientist who works in that field investigate the facts in the light of that article and try to falsify the theory which arises from that article.

Demarcation Criterion of Science / Scientificness So, for the purpose of becoming a good writer, the matter is not about just writing a lot. You can do something for many years without becoming competent. Primarily, to be good in scientific writing is means that to be good / competent in science itself. Those whose can do, also write. Demarcation Criterion of Science / Scientificness Principles of scientific / academic writing Rules of academic writing

Academic / Scientific writing is not just a formulaic action. Academic / Scientific writing is not just a formulaic action or kind of writing styles. The rules are about the form of the article. At least they are about the point where the form and content touch each other. On the other hand the principles are the general concepts that guide successful scientific communication. In other words, if an article is written with the rules of academic writing, its form will be scientific. This is a necessary cause for academic writing. But this is not an enough cause for to consider that article as a scientific one. It must be compatible with the scientific principles too (This means that scientific principles and academic writing rules can sometimes be separated (fake-scientific articles use this separation). That's why the 'academic writing problem' is about learning the principles and learning how to apply them most appropriately with the rules.

Discussion on the 1st principle: Success is defined not by the number of pages you have in print but by their influence. You succeed when your peers understand your work and use it to motivate their own. Success, therefore, comes not just from writing but from writing effectively. The effectiveness comes from the principles and rules that the article was written in the compatibleness among them. Discussion on the 1st principle: All the good examples of the scientific articles have a common pattern: They are able to cast the ideas in language that is clear and effective and that communicates to a wide audience. Does clear thinking lead to clear writing? Yes, it does. The most clear thinking is the scientific reasoning. That's the case. But, for the sake of the complete picture of the successful writing, we have to reverse the formula at the same time. Clear thinking can emerge from clear writing. Imposing order by organizing and expressing ideas has great power to clarify. In many cases, writing is the process through which scientists come to understand the real form and implications of their work. In other words, specially in social sciences, the writing process is the part of the scientific thinking. Often, the process of structuring your thoughts to communicate them allows you to test and refine those thoughts. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration

Dimensions of Academic Writing Fundamental Dimension 2nd Dimension: The Principles 3rth Dimension: The Rules It is about the demarcation criterion of science. Such a criterion allows us to distinguish the science from nonscientific fictions or pseudosciences. The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted. This entry clarifies the specific nature of pseudoscience in relation to other categories of non-scientific doctrines and practices, including science denial(ism) and resistance to the facts. It is directly related to the first dimension. It is the dimension that adds the quality of scientificness to a work. But this dimension is the invisible part of the writing process. In other words, this dimension consists of non-written general rules. Rules for formal academic writing are quite strict, though often unstated. Formal writing is used in academic and scientific settings whenever you want to convey your ideas to a wide audience, with many possible backgrounds and assumptions. Unlike casual conversation or emails to friends, formal writing needs to be clear, unambiguous, literal, and well structured. The rules give this form to an article. They are about the form of an article and because of this they are formulaic statements. The rules are about the form of the article. At least they are about the point where the form and content touch each other Testability, falsifiability. Karl Popper proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” In sum, “A sentence (or a theory) is empirical-scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.” The Science or a scientist (also the scientific article) never pull a rabbit out of their hat. (It is an idiom that can mean to solve a problem in an unexpected way or simply to produce something from nothing, as if by magic) **All empirical evidence must be clear, accessible. Hypothesis / theory should be well and clearly organized. And its links with the empirical world should be clear and give an opportunity to reader to test the hypothesis. The title defined as the fewest possible words that adequately the contents of the paper. The title must be between 5 and 25 words “Studies on Brucella” (This title is accordance with the rule) When the reader sees this title, he/she starts to wonder about the rabbit that will be out of the writer's hat. “Action of Streptomycin on Mycobacterium tuberculosis” (This title is accordance with the rule too) There is not any rabbit in this title. Scientific Bibliographic Consideration