videnskabsteori, -kommunikation og etik (smac) fall 2008 · 2008-09-12 · videnskabsteori,...

36
Course teachers Ole K Andersen, dr scient ([email protected]) NN (theory of science) Course secretary Jette Damkjær (common secretary for 1 st semester M.Sc., [email protected]) Vita Kammersgaard ([email protected]) Course literature (OKA part) Leedy & Ormrod. Practical Research: Planning and Design, 8th edition. Merrill, Prentice Hall, 2004. Overheads: Available after each lecture Course homepage www.hst.aau.dk/~oka/SMAC Videnskabsteori, -kommunikation og etik (SMAC) fall 2008

Upload: others

Post on 26-Feb-2020

16 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

• Course teachers

Ole K Andersen, dr scient ([email protected])

NN (theory of science)

• Course secretary

Jette Damkjær (common secretary for 1st semester M.Sc., [email protected])

Vita Kammersgaard ([email protected])

• Course literature (OKA part)

– Leedy & Ormrod. Practical Research: Planning and Design, 8th edition. Merrill, Prentice Hall, 2004.

– Overheads: Available after each lecture

– Course homepage

www.hst.aau.dk/~oka/SMAC

Videnskabsteori, -kommunikation

og etik

(SMAC) fall 2008

SMAC

Objectives• Understand the scientific process

– Basic scientific theories/reasoning

– A bit history of science

– Think, plando it

– Report

• Communicate the scientific result

– Talk

– Write

• Use scientific language

– English

– Native

• Systematized common knowledge

• Examples throughout the course: a lot from biomedical research, but of generic nature

• A good researcher:

– Background knowledge

– Knows his tools

– Good at politics

Course Plan• Lecture 1 Introduction to the SMAC course, research hypothesis

• Lecture 2 Theory (and history) of science – only S-SN students

• Lecture 3 -

• Lecture 4 -

• Lecture 5 -

• Lecture 6 Scientific methods in science and engineering (OKA)

• Lecture 7 Ethics in science, with emphasis on biomedical sciences (OKA)

• Lecture 8 Scientific communication, examples on oral presentation

and poster presentation. Details on SEMCON (OKA)

SMAC

Contents• Scientific process

– 4 (8 for S-SN) auditorium lectures

SEMCON 1st M.Sc. project

- Abstract (not necessarily the same as

in paper)

- Scientific paper

- Poster presentation - Worksheets

- Oral presentation - Repeat poster+oral

SEMCON - Semester conference

Presentation of semester projects within a scientific framework

• First announcement: 12.09.2008

– Planning research paper

– Allocation of time and space

• Second (final) announcement: 21.11.2008

– Deadline for final submission

– Specific guidelines for abstracts, posters and oral presentations

– Deadline for abstracts: 12.12.2008 (not confirmed)

– Abstract book (pdf-file)

• 21th SEMCON: (19.12.2008)

– Oral presentations

– Poster presentations

SEMCON

AWARD

Based on this and your performance on the SEMCON the conference committee (chaired by OKA) will select the winner

– Participation in an IEEE conference on European soil

– Or other study relevant travelling

– Price of dkr 20.000 per group (or max kr 5000,-per member )

Science

• From Latin “Scientia”– To know, to discern, to distinguish

– The state or fact of knowledge

– Systematised knowledge from observation, study, and experimentation carried out in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied (social, natural, XX engineering, biomedical, etc.)

– Organised common sense

• Scientific– Designating the method of research in which a

hypothesis, formulated after systematic, objective collection of data, is tested empirically

Hypothesis

• Greek “to suppose or to speculate“ which is coming from hupotithenai=“to put under or to suppose”. Interpretation: speculations on underlying mechanisms

• An unproved theory; supposition tentatively accepted to explain certain facts or provide a basis for further investigations

• A provisional idea whose merit needs evaluation

• Verification = acceptance

• Falsification = rejection

• Research leading to acceptance is not a proof!!

Hypothesis, cont.

• Dubitation

– Doubting an existing theory so strongly that

no formal falsification is attempted -

instead new ideas are emerging

• “ulcus duodeni is caused by psycho-social

factors or too much acid in stomach”

• “ulcus duodeni is related to Helibactor pylori

(bacteria)” - comes from doubts and new

searches

Hypothesis, cont.

• Propositionlegitimacy

– Undertake formal proces of synthesis leading to validation. Otherwise it‟s idle speculation.

– 4 steps:• Specify solution

• Set goals

• Define factors

• Postulate performance metrics

stated order

Hypothesis, cont.

1. Specify solution (mechanisms and procedures)

• Schematics, pseudo-code, algorithms, experimental design, etc.

• Choose the best/most likely solution, perhaps based on Quick and Dirty pilot tests

• Specify the procedure to follow

2. Set goals

• Specify criteria for acceptance of hypothesis (for all sub tasks) – improved quality of life – but what is that precisely?

• Specify tests

Hypothesis, cont.

3. Define Factors• List all factors that govern the system

• Then select which parameters are held constant and which are systematically varied

• Find values for fixed parameters and the range of change for those that are varied.

4. Performance metrics• How to measure, objectively

Exception to hypothesis driven research: Descriptive research

http://www.smi.auc.dk/~oka/SMAC/huda_akil2003.pdf

Hypothesis, example

• Funtional Electrical Thereapy (FET) will improve the gait rehabilitation after a stroke

– Its not far fetched: Engineering approach: the brain needs feedback, hence we must provide that.

– Electrical stimulation will assist the gait

• The hypothesis guides us to the solution, an experimental design, i.e. pratical research

• A global hypothesis: ‟improve life quality for stroke patients‟ is not of any practical use –it doesn‟t give us any hint to a solution

”The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact”

Thomas Henry Huxley – a great defender of Darwin

1. Specify solution

• Experiment

• Group comparison between treated group and no-treatment group, electrical therapy only difference

• Single blinded

• Pilot test to evaluate concept, get some experience on parameter levels

• Inclusion/exclusion criteria

• Etc.

2. Set goals

• Overall goal: Improve walking performance

• Statistical power, i.e. a way to estimate N

• Tests: before, after, late values

Session 2 Session 3

Training

1 Month 1 Month 5 Months

3. Define factors

• Parameters on electrical stimulation

– Intensity, stimulation site, frequency

• Duration of training session

• Walking speed during training

• Level of assistance from physioterapists

• Entrance level of patients (randomisation)

4. Performance metrics

• Gait quality

– Qualitative measures (patients need for

help)

– Quantitative measures (velocity, symmetry,

energy consumption)

Criteria for research

projects

• Research projects should be practical research, built on precise and realistic planning and executed within the framework of a clearly conceived and feasible design !

• Four important criteria

– Universality• Other competent people than you should also be able to carry

out the research project. Not exclusive to you

• Same principles within different disciplines (engineering, medical, social etc.)

• Raises questions to be answered through stringent research methods (logical, critical, consistent)

Criteria for research

projects, cont.

–Replication

• Research should be repeatable by other competent people

–Control

• Parameters are important - control the controllable. Conditions should be described and standardised

–Measurement

• Data should be susceptible to measurement. Often easy in physical sciences and difficult in social sciences

What science is not

- or not should be -

• Simple gathering of information

– Distinguish from learning

– “Going to the library and read about King

Christian IV”

• Transportation of facts

– Needs interpretation of the facts and data

– “Listing facts, statements and knowledge

are not enough”

What science is not

- or not should be -

•Rummaging for information

–More than checking information for self-enlightenment

–“Finding out house prizes in Aalborg”

•Catchword to get attention

–Often misused in advertisements

–“Years of research have produced a new hair shampoo”

Eight characteristics of

good science

1. Starts with a question or problem

2. Requires a clear articulation of a goal

3. Follows a specific plan or procedure

4. Divides the problem into more manageable sub-problems

5. Guided by specific problems, questions or hypothesis

6. Accepts critical assumptions

7. Requires collection and interpretation of data

8. Is cyclical or helical

The research question or problem• Many unanswered questions and unresolved

problems

– Look around - observe - wonder

– Be curious

– Ask questions• Why?

• What is the cause of that?

• What does it mean?

– Previous observations or extension of scientific theories

• Nobel prize winner 2000 in medicine - Eric Kandel

– Observed changed function of memory in psychiatric patients(e.g. the film Rain Man on autism)

– Asked why is the brain working differently?

– How is memory stored in the brain cells? (synaptic transmission -signal transduction)

Guidance by a specific problem or

hypothesis• Hypotheses are not new or purely academic constructs, but

reasonable guess - logical supposition

• „Binary‟ example: you come home and wants to turn on the lamp - but no light.

– #1. The bulb has burned out

– #2. The lamp is not plugged in outlet

– #3. A thunderstorm has interrupted the electrical service

– #4. The wire/connector from the lamp is defect

– #5. You forgot to pay your electric bill

• Different methods

– Get a flashlight - insert new bulb - still no light (hypothesis #1 is rejected)

– Visual check that the lamp is plugged in (hypothesis #2 is rejected)

– The neighbours homes all have light (hypothesis #3 is rejected)

– Lift the cord - the lamp lights and goes out - lift the cord again - the lamp lights and goes out (hypothesis #4 is accepted)

Acceptance of certain critical

assumptions

• Research has assumptions

• Self-evident truths - conditions that need to be taken for granted

• Define and state the assumptions necessary for your hypothesis, e.g.

– “An adaptive filter is better at removing noise than a fixed filter in EEG instruments for anaesthesia”

• There is a relationship between EEG and anaesteticdepth

• Your instruments in the lab are accurate (calibrated) and sufficiently sensitive to detect a difference

• The examiner is capable of performing an accurate test

Collection and interpretation of data

• Collection of data is the first step

– Data are objective

• Interpretation of the data is the next - necessary - step

– Data need to go through the human brain to get a

meaning !

– Interpretation is subjective (logical mind, reasoning

skills, objectivity of the researcher)

• Good arguments for your interpretation is warranted, often

based on the existing literature

Statistics as a tool of

research

• Helps to describe and interpret the data set

– Descriptive statistics

• Points of central tendency (mode, mean, median etc)

• Measures of variation (quartile range, SD, SEM,

variance)

• Measures of relationship (Pearson product moment,

Spearman rank-order etc)

– Inferential statistics

• Predictions – estimations (e.g. mean from samples)

• Hypothesis testing (t-test, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney,

Friedman, ANOVA etc)

Statistical tests of

hypotheses• Null hypothesis H0:

– Postulates no statistically significant differences exist between “A” and “B”

– “A” occurs as often as “B”

– “A” is as good, or as worse an intervention as “B”

– “Hip som hap” ! H0 can be accepted

– If “A” is different from “B”, and if the magnitude of that difference exceeds the possibility for random error, chance or variability, then some intervening variable is at play ! H0 must be rejected

– Type I and Type II errors – power of statistics

Note

– Statistical significance is not necessarily functional significance

Research is

cyclical or helical

• Resolution of the original problem seldom closes the cycle but generates new questions – helix

• Research is rarely conclusive• Research is not static but dynamic

1. Research begins

with a question

2. Clear

statement

of the goal

6. Interpretation

Rejection or

acceptance

5. Collect and

organise data

4. Hypotheses

to be tested

3. Division

into subproblems

AAU student projects vs

scientific projects

Is cyclical or helical

Requires collection and interpretation of

data

Accepts critical assumptions

Guided by specific problems, questions or

hypothesis

Divides the problem into more

manageable sub-problems

Follows a specific plan or procedure

Requires a clear articulation of a goal

Starts with a question or problem

Science

May be cyclical/helical

Result: does it work?

No subjective interpretation required

Assumptions – when required

Problem formulation

Sub-problems – the nature of group work

The system description outlines plan

Goal: system performance

Project proposals (involving a problem)

Typical AAU projects on B.Sc.

Examples of 7 sem projectsA master-slave based session layer protocol for real time WiFi…..(PR731

2006)

• Communication with satelite needs to be real time. Traditional Wifi is asynchronious hence difficult to obtain real time responses.

• Hypothesis: master-slave communication is better than the existing method.

• Experimentation, signal analysis, statistical tests

Absolute positioning of a beacon by estimating acoustic time of flight using the cross correlation method (PR730 2004)

• Robot positioning

• Hypothesis: Trilateralisation based on acoustic signals will improve 2D positioning

• Experimentation, comparison with existing methods, statistical analysis

Designing, prototyping, and testing of a flexible on-board computer platform for PICO satellites (PR731 2003)

• Development of a generic framework for subsystems at the satelite

• Conclusion: ”....sollid foundation has been made for different development tasks next semester”

From student projects

to Nobel prize

• Why learn about the scientific process?

– Pragmatic: part of the curriculum

– Idealistic: integrated way to view and manage new problems in practise

Methodology• Control acquisition of data

• Organise data and extract meaning

• Discover the discipline of research

– Pursue a Ph.D. or a Doctorate

– Understand the drive to push forward the limits of knowledge for the benefits of our well-being

Reviewing the literature• “You need to have background knowledge to approach your

own research problem”

• Purpose of the review– Reveal investigations similar to your own– Show how other researchers have handled methodological

and design issues– Describe methods to deal with problem situations that you

are facing– Reveal sources of data that you may not have known existed

(e.g. patent databases)– Introduce you to key persons whose work you may not have

known– Help to see your own study in historical perspective– Give you new ideas and approaches– Help to evaluate your own research efforts by comparison to

similar efforts of others– Indicate the time and effort previously put into your research

topic

Practical advice to

information search

• Use the tools and search the literature - haste slowly - and read

• Identify 2-3 central, high-quality review papers - and read

• Read papers most closely related to your research topic and then gradually expand

• Pick others brains

– Friends

– Supervisors

– Experts

– Senior faculty members

• Contact authors to key-papers

• Important verbal information can be obtained from meetings, conferences and personal interactions

SMAC-lecture 1 - exercise

• Evaluate your project in terms of

– What was the original question or problem?

– Have you stated a clear hypothesis to be tested?

– Specify solution, set the goals, define factors and select the performance metrics

• Do you have a specific plan of procedures, including worksheets?

• Do you need to break down the problems into a number of subproblems?

– Will your methods be able to generate data that can support or reject the hypothesis?

• Send your revised description (*.pdf) of the project to [email protected] including project title, group ID