(Page 39 of 80) - Changing Teaching Practice in a Research Methods Course Utilizing a Student-Centered Approach authored by Shingles, Richard., Becerra, Raquel. and Pencek, Bruce.

Shingles, Becerra & Pencek
Virginia Tech

February, 2006

APSA Teaching & Learning Conference

Logic generates new knowledge (claims) from existing knowledge by reasoned

argument. The derived knowledge is always an inference. It is deduced from what we
already know. Therefore it is only as accurate as the premises upon which it is based.
Moreover, in order to be credible the inference must conform to rules of logic. This

semester we will study several types of logic, including: (1) nomological reasoning (Don’t
be intimidated; it is the form of deductive logic you used in your high school geometry
class), (2) generalizing from specific observations (i.e., from a sample to a larger
population), and (3) the type of proof necessary to infer causation from observed
association. Our principal goal is to understand the rules of logic and be able to use
them in determining the soundness of the reasoning behind knowledge claims. A related
goal is to recognize various logical fallacies (convincing, but non-logical modes of
persuasion).

3. Observation

The view of the efficacy of human observation taken by your textbook author, Dr.

Schutt, and myself is called “post-positivist” (chapter 3). Observation is sensory
perception (based on sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch). Therefore observation is by
nature subjective (biased by what we already “know” and associated emotions which
influence the way our minds process information). No matter how clear and certain are
our observations of the real world (that exists outside of our minds), they ultimately
exist in, and of, our minds. Consequently people with varied experiences may perceive
the world differently. For this reason scientists spend a great deal of resources and
time attempting to assure that their observations are objective as possible. Considerable
effort is spent in determining the validity (accuracy) and reliability (consistency) of
observation. Scientists largely do this through precise measurement, systematic
(methodical), controlled observation which is designed to rule out fallacious knowledge
claims (including their own personal biases), and (most important) by peer review
(having their work checked by other experts). Ultimately, however, all observations -
and their interpretation and evaluation - are influenced by predispositions (e.g., prior
personal belief and theories), and rightfully so. We all must interpret new information in
terms of what we already know. Without prior knowledge, there is no way to make sense

of new observations. However, since all knowledge is ultimately subjective, it is not
possible to be completely “value free” (neutral). We will explore some of the ways
empiricists attempt to know the real world by observing “facts.”. Our goal is to learn the
criteria (rules) for making credible knowledge claims based on observation.

KNOWLEDGE SKILLS
A working knowledge of any method of knowing (e.g., authority, logic or observation)
requires four skills:

1. Literacy:

knowledge of a particular method of knowing; the ability to read and write discussions
that are based on the method; familiarity with key concepts and their use in knowing
and discourse.