Did this summary as a presentation, unfortunately, the video size exceeded what is allowable (10 MB) so I couldn’t embed it alone.
Tried to upload the presentation, and while it is there, I can’t seem to get that link to work either.
Power Point Presentation:
So, I tried to embed the YouTube upload, and while it is present in the code, it doesn’t look like it actually shows up.
Youtube Upload (video file size exceeded Blog hosting)
So, that leaves just the external YouTube link. This wasn’t how I envisioned this working, so I will just write out my next Chapter Summary instead!
External Youtube Link:
I really like the presentation format you created for the chapter summation. I think at the end when you mentioned scientific method vs. scientific methodology it’s important to make sure the method satisfies the characteristics of being logical, confirmable, repeatable, and scrutinizable. After reading this section in the chapter I thought of MMR vaccines leading to autism. The research was not confirmable because the information they were getting was from parents and not medical professionals. While the research did go under peer review and get approved, it did not follow the rules when publishing research.
Brittney,
Thanks for the response.
[At the risk of going off-topic here, and because it is inherent to my own personal hobby horse of the Epistemological Crisis and the current issue/topic of vaccine hesitancy amidst a global pandemic]
Having spent considerable time with Wakefield et.al and a whole host of other characters, I am curious what your perspective is on Wakefield. It seems that your perception of this was that this was a ‘simple’ matter of misunderstanding the research method used by Wakefield et al and the interpretation of the results? Also, I apologize if I have mischaracterized your understanding. I have not seen this (specific) perspective before, so I would appreciate anything more that you might be willing to share with me.
My email – in case you would be more comfortable sharing your thoughts that way instead: kbuchhol@richmond.edu
Thanks … Kenny
Kenny,
I really enjoyed your video presentation. I thought it was a great way to compile a lot of information. I think the question you proposed at the end of your video was interesting. I think social sciences are seen as imprecise because they aren’t always easily quantifiable. In social science, you’re studying multidimensional constructs and researchers need to investigate indicators or items to measure these constructs to make it more objective. This is difficult because some of these constructs are subjective and subjectivity is associated with imprecision. As someone who has studied a lot of natural science research, I believe that natural science can be just as imprecise. There is always subjectivity when it comes to the interpretation of results. I don’t believe one is more “imprecise” over the other, social sciences are just sometimes harder to quantify.
Thanks for the feedback.
You did a much better job explaining the rationale behind the assertion that Social Sciences appears to be more – fluid? – than the text did. I didn’t find any specific explanation in the text for the assertion(s) made regarding the differences behind Social Science(s) and Natural Science(s) on this point, rather, it was just asserted as if it was an accepted fact without need of support.
… Kenny
I came in and added the embed. To embed a YouTube video, first go to the video, select Share > Embed, and copy the embed code. Then return to the blog while editing the post, click on the Text (rather than HTML) tab in the editor, and paste the embed code where you’d like it to appear within the text. The result is as viewed here.
Love that you worked at this, Kenny. Great use the multimedia affordances of the medium.
Thanks.
I thought I had done this correctly, but I (obviously!) missed some essential step.
… Kenny