Ad
related to: naturalistic observation ethics
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Naturalistic observation, sometimes referred to as fieldwork, is a research methodology in numerous fields of science including ethology, anthropology, linguistics, the social sciences, and psychology, in which data are collected as they occur in nature, without any manipulation by the observer.
Ethical naturalism (also called moral naturalism or naturalistic cognitivistic definism) [1] is the meta-ethical view which claims that: Ethical sentences express propositions. Some such propositions are true. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world. These moral features of the world are reducible to some set of non ...
Observational data forms the foundation of a significant body of knowledge. Observation is a method of data collection and falls into the category of qualitative research techniques. There are a number of benefits of observation, including its simplicity as a data collection method and its usefulness for hypotheses.
Naturalistic observation may also be time consuming, sometimes requiring dozens of observation sessions lasting large parts of each day to collect information on the behavior of interest. Lastly, because behavior is perceived so subjectively, it is possible that different observers notice different things, or draw different conclusions from ...
Objectivism is an expression of capitalist ethical idealism within a naturalistic framework. An example of a more progressive naturalistic philosophy is secular humanism. The current usage of the term naturalism derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. [20]
There may be responses to the above relativistic critiques. As mentioned above, ethical realists that are non-natural can appeal to God's purpose for humankind. On the other hand, naturalistic thinkers may posit that valuing people's well-being is somehow "obviously" the purpose of ethics, or else the only relevant purpose worth talking about.
This fact gives naturalistic observational research a high ecological validity. [11] During naturalistic observations, researchers can avoid interfering with the behavior they are observing by using unobtrusive methods, [15] if needed. Both types of observational methods are designed to be as reliable as possible.
The fact–value distinction is closely related to the naturalistic fallacy, a topic debated in ethical and moral philosophy. G. E. Moore believed it essential to all ethical thinking. [7] However, contemporary philosophers like Philippa Foot have called into question the validity of such assumptions.