Scientific inference skill

  • Thread starter Thread starter prof Neuro mg T
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scientific
AI Thread Summary
Scientific inference skills involve drawing logical conclusions from observations, evidence, and prior knowledge, utilizing both inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive inference starts with specific observations to form general theories, while deductive inference begins with a hypothesis and tests it through experimentation. The discussion emphasizes that these skills can be developed through practice and are applicable in various fields, including mechanics, programming, and network engineering. Real-world examples illustrate how professionals use scientific inference to diagnose problems and test hypotheses effectively. Mastery of scientific inference is essential for problem-solving across diverse disciplines.
prof Neuro mg T
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Science
Relevant Equations
Inference skill
Please give explanation for scientific inference skill pdf, i wants to deep learn that..
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
prof Neuro mg T said:
Homework Statement: Science
Relevant Equations: Inference skill

Please give explanation for scientific inference skill pdf, i wants to deep learn that..
Thank you
Welcome to PF.

Can you please say more about your question? What do you mean by "pdf"? Have you tried doing a Google search on scientific inference skill?
 
Scientific inference skills encompass the ability to draw logical conclusions based on observations, evidence, and prior knowledge. There is Inductive inference. It istarts with observation and leads to broader generalizations or theories. The Deductive inferernce begins with hypothesis and then the experiment to test the theory.
That means that inductive method goes from specific case to general one and the deductive method is vice versa.
In my opinion, it is the skill that you can only learn with a lot of practice. When writing your conclusion you should preoritize describing what you saw during the experiment. In both methods I mentioned earlier you must tell what are the conditions of the experiment, why you choose one theory and not the other one and so on
 
The "scientific inference skill" is nothing magical. Lots of people practice it every day. I spent a career using it and I have never been a practicing scientist.

An auto mechanic uses the skill when diagnosing a problem with your car. The customer reports a symptom. The mechanic may observe the car looking for further symptoms. He comes up with a list of hypotheses for conditions that could explain the symptoms. He runs tests to confirm or rule out various hypotheses. That is scientific inference in action. Theory is the part where you come up with hypotheses. Experiment is the part where you choose which tests to run and run them.

A programmer uses the skill when troubleshooting code. The program runs slow or produces the wrong result. Perhaps it does so intermittently. The programmer comes up with hypotheses about where the fault lies. Maybe in module A. Maybe in subroutine B. He constructs test cases, inserts debugging code or fires up the code debugger to further identify the problem.

An office worker uses the skill when trying to figure out who is stealing lunch on alternate Tuesdays. He comes up with hypotheses about the guilty party. Maybe he runs an experiment with copious quantities of Ex-Lax, ghost peppers or glow in the dark fingerprint dust.

I often used the skill in network engineering. Some application is running slow. How does the application work? This can be surprisingly difficult because end users and even application owners tend not to know how their applications work or even what servers they are using. How can we find out how the application works? Can we catch the problem in action? What bottlenecks could exist on the network? How can we test for them? Do the test results explain the observed symptoms? How can we mitigate or work around the issue? At almost every step in the process, one has hypotheses and testing.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and berkeman
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top