Which options accurately describe valid scientific writing?
(Select all that apply)
rational
empirical
skeptical
biased
is it the second and third one?
I would say all but biased.
Yes, the options "empirical" and "skeptical" accurately describe valid scientific writing.
To explain how to determine the validity of scientific writing, let's look at the definitions of these options:
1. Rational: This refers to the use of logical and reasoned thinking in scientific writing. While rationality is important in scientific reasoning, it is not specific to scientific writing alone.
2. Empirical: This refers to basing conclusions on evidence obtained through observation and experimentation. Valid scientific writing relies on empirical evidence to support claims and draw conclusions. Scientific theories and hypotheses are tested and validated through the collection and analysis of empirical data.
3. Skeptical: This refers to maintaining a critical and questioning attitude towards claims and evidence. Scientific writing should be skeptical, meaning it should critically analyze and evaluate evidence, theories, and hypotheses. This includes openly questioning and testing ideas to ensure validity.
4. Biased: This refers to having a prejudice or an unfair influence in favor of or against a subject. Valid scientific writing should strive to minimize bias and maintain objectivity. Bias can undermine the scientific method by clouding judgment, distorting evidence, or skewing results.
Therefore, options 2 (empirical) and 3 (skeptical) are the correct choices for accurately describing valid scientific writing.