Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Research integrity or scientific integrity became an autonomous concept within scientific ethics in the late 1970s. In contrast with other forms of ethical misconducts, the debate over research integrity is focused on "victimless offence" that only hurts "the robustness of scientific record and public trust in science". [3]
Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The social responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined.
A rich variety of arguments including forms of the contingency argument, ontological argument, and moral argument have been proposed by philosophers like Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Gödel, and Aquinas for the existence of God throughout history. Arguments for God usually refer to some form of metaphysically or logically necessary maximally ...
The German title of Against Method, Wider den Methodenzwang translates more directly to "Against the Forced Constraint of Method" emphasizing that it is the imposition of methodological rules that is rejected rather than the uses of methods altogether. [9] Feyerabend offers two parallel arguments for this position, one conceptual and one ...
Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham discussed some of the ways moral investigations are a science. [9] He criticized deontological ethics for failing to recognize that it needed to make the same presumptions as his science of morality to really work – whilst pursuing rules that were to be obeyed in every situation (something that worried Bentham).
It is the violation of scientific integrity: violation of the scientific method and of research ethics in science, including in the design, conduct, and reporting of research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions, [1] reproduced in The COPE report 1999: [2]
A priori ('from the earlier') and a posteriori ('from the later') are Latin phrases used in philosophy to distinguish types of knowledge, justification, or argument by their reliance on experience. A priori knowledge is independent from any experience. Examples include mathematics, [i] tautologies and deduction from pure reason.
Ethical dilemmas come in different types. The distinctions between these types are often important for disagreements about whether there are ethical dilemmas or not. Certain arguments for or against their existence may apply only to some types but not to other types. And only some types, if any, may constitute genuine ethical dilemmas.