Thinking Scientifically

Running head: THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY 1

Name

Institutional Affiliation

THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY 2

Thinking Scientifically

Ruling out rival hypotheses

Ruling out of the opposing theories is a principle that necessitates conducting of

additional research as a way of eliminating these hypotheses. The findings that exhibit

consistency with several assumptions often require research rule to certain ones out. On

consideration of the pattern of the reported results, there is the necessity for questioning the

presence of alternative hypotheses that could facilitate explanation of the pattern of data

(Alagumalai, 2015).

However, from the claim in the document, it is evident that the study fails to consider

alternative hypotheses that could assist in explaining the presence of several Nobel Prize winners

in the select nations. The study limits itself to milk and milk products while there are other

factors that the countries share that may contribute to the high number of Nobel Prize winners.

The study thus fails to conduct adequate research to rule out the possibility of other factors

contributing to a large number of Nobel Prize winners.

Falsifiability

The principle of falsifiability necessitates that the claims be able to be disapproved. The

claim is scientific as it can be easily tested through consideration of the milk consumption per

capita of the different nations relative to the number of individuals from these countries. The

article mainly claims that the countries having high milk consumption per capita tend to have a

lot of Nobel Laureates. The claim can, however, be disapproved due to the lack of consistency.

Some of the nations having massive proportions of Nobel Laureates per 10 million include

Sweden and Switzerland. However, there is the necessity for acknowledging the possibility of

THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY 3

bias that reflects the large number of Nobel Laureates in Sweden as they serve as the hosts as

well.

The sample size is rather small and inconclusive as the study selects a few nations having

high milk consumption per capita against a single country having low milk consumption per

capita to support its claims. Moreover, there is the necessity for noting that even though Finland

has high milk consumption per capita; its Nobel haul is significantly low in comparison to that of

other nations. The inconsistency of the claim proves falsifiability of the claim as it can be easily

disapproved. The claim is thus falsified as it is capable of being disapproved through

consideration of the different nation’s milk consumption per capita to their number of Nobel

Laureates. The article thus does an excellent job of following the principle of falsifiability as it is

possible to test whether the claim is true or false. As evident, the claim exhibits inconsistency

that proves the falsified nature of the claim. On the other hand, it proves valid on consideration

of some of the nations.

Parsimony (Occam’s razor)

The principle plays a significant role in proving the scientific nature of the claim through

the presence of two hypotheses that facilitate explanation of the phenomenon equally well while

selecting a simpler one (Ammirante, 2017). From the article, it is evident the presence of two

theories. The first one associate milk consumption with the number of the Nobel Laureates while

the other associate consumption of chocolate with a large number of Nobel Laureates in the

nations. The hypotheses include the role of flavonoid content of the chocolate in boosting the

brain power and its association with the consumption of chocolate. The principle thus plays a

significant role in providing biological explanation onto the relationship between milk and brain

power of individuals that often ensures the validity of an individual for the Nobel Prizes. The

THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY 4

study thus fails to employ parsimony through its failure to select a simpler hypothesis to explain

the correct hypotheses.

THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY 5

References

Alagumalai, S. (2015). THINKING SCIENTIFICALLY. Teaching Science: The Journal Of The

Australian Science Teachers Association, 61(4), 24-31.

Ammirante, P. (2017, September). Psychology and Scientific Thinking. Psychology 102:

Introduction to Psychology I. Lecture conducted from George Brown College, Toronto,

ON.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."