Research Metodology/Recompilation E-Book

Patricia Adriana Rebollo

• Herausgeber: Editorial Autores de Argentina
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Spanisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Seitenzahl: 326

Beschreibung

This literary work is a compilation of methodological and statistical content, fundamental, because it is accessible to the reader without previous experience in the matter, because of its broad, agile content and with solid foundations, filling the gap in basic texts, in scientific research. By reading this book, they will begin to contact the different important aspects that allow them to carry out any scientific investigation. We hope to motivate our readers, providing them with the necessary tools, so that they stand out following the steps of the scientific method, from any approach, such as sociological, clinical, geographical, historical, anthropological, literary, biological, archaeological, film and another that may arouse your interest. This book represents a gateway to the universe of science, so we propose this challenge with our best wishes so that your research can stand out.

Leseprobe

Patricia Adriana RebolloEmma Mariana Ábalos

ResearchMethodology / Recompilation

Rebollo, Patricia Adriana Research-gathering methodology / Patricia Adriana Rebollo ; Emma Mariana Ábalos. - 1a ed. - Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires : Autores de Argentina, 2023.

Libro digital, EPUB

Archivo Digital: descarga y online

ISBN 978-987-87-3869-7

1. Estrategias de la Investigación. I. Ábalos, Emma Mariana. II. Título.CDD 001.42

EDITORIAL AUTORES DE [email protected]

Traduction: Elizabeth Moleker

Índice

GRATITUDE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I: Brief history about Scientific Research

History of Knowledge. Origin of Science

Episteme vs Doxa

Theocracy and Dogma

Protoscience

Science

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER II: Types of knowledge

Empirical knowledge

Philosophical knowledge

Theological knowledge

Factual knowledge

Scientific Knowledge

Link between thinking and knowledge

Knowledge as a problem

Knowledge as a process

Interaction with reality

Subject-Object

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER III: The research process and its steps

Steps in the research process

Essential moments of the project research

Models for the purpose or purposes pursued

Models classified according to the basis to obtain the data

Models by level of knowledge acquired

Models according to the nature of the information that is collected to respond to the research problem

Models according to the time in which they are made

Models according to historical studies

Other research models

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER IV: Theme Selection

DEFINITION OF THE TOPIC

Where and how to find a theme?

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER V: Problem Delimitation

Problem subject of research

Assessment of the research problem FINER-P

Formulate the science question

Origin and foundation of the problem subject of research

Strategic methods for problem delimitation

Deficiency in the research question

Final considerations

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER VI: Theoretical framework

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER VII: Objectives

Types of research objectives

How should a research objective be identified?

What is the relationship between the research question and the general objective?

Where is the achievement of the Research Objectives expressed?

What aspects should the overview of an investigation contain?

What is the basic characteristic of a target?

How are the general objective and the type of research related?

To what level should the specific objectives reach?

How many achievements can a goal have?

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER VIII: Research Designs

RESEARCH DESIGNS

Types of Research Design

What types of design are there for research?

Laboratory or experimental research

Pre-experiment

Quasi-experiments

Non-experimental research according to timing

The Transversal Method

Longitudinal design

QUALITATIVE DESIGN

Quantitative studies

Selection of quantitative research designs

BiBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER IX: Universe and Samples

UNIVERSE

Probability Samples

Non-probability samples

Confounding biases and modifiers for effect or interaction

Confounding or confounding variables

Effect modifier variable or variable of interaction

Strategies to avoid biases

BIBLIOGRAFÍA

CHAPTER X: Variables / Operationalization

VARIABLE

Types of variables according to their nature

Types of variables according to their complexity

Types of variables according to their function or relationship

Types of variables according to the level of measurement

What is operationalization of variables?

Variable measurement levels

The indicators

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XI: Collection Sources and Instruments of data

DATA COLLECTION

Choice of Data Source

Observation Guide

Structured Observation Guide

Interview

Survey

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

ANALYSIS

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XII: Content Analysis. Data processing

CONTENT ANALYSIS

Analysis of non-quantified data

Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Data processing

Data Collection Methods

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XIII: Basic statistics

BASIC TYPES OF STATISTICS

Measures of central tendency

Double entry tables

Association tables: exposure/disease

2x2 stratified tables

Simple 2xn tables

2xn stratified tables

Measures of effect Measures of impact in exposed

Graphics

Chart Types

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XIV: Analysis and Synthesis of the results

Analysis and Synthesis of the results

RESULTS ANALYSIS

Synthesis of the Results

Data analysis

Discussion

Discussion Structure

Results and conclusions

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XV: Important aspects of the structure of a research paper

RECOMMENDATIONS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT

Access to the field

TYPES OF STUDIES

BIBLIOGRAFIA

CHAPTER XVI: Ethics/Conflict of Interest

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

What is the conflict of interest?

Final thoughts

Ethics Committee

Bioethics Committee

BIBLIOGRAFIA

GRATITUDE

We thank our parents, who were our first teachers, our teachers who have left us the mark of the knowledge they transmitted to us, our children and our students who were the fundamental pillar for the realization of this work.

INTRODUCTION

Through this book, it is intended to provide tools to all those professionals who want to start traveling the path of scientific research.

All scientific research carries a process, whose guidelines must be given through the research methodology. For many years, when talking about research, particular emphasis has been placed on clinical research. Today there is a greater interest in developing work with a strong impact on society, culture, organizations, industries, not only related to the field of health, but with any field of action that arouses the interest of the public. Investigator.

Given that, in recent years, there is a need in society for constant high production, scientific and technological development, it has been oriented towards innovation, creativity, the generation of talent, etc. In such a way that they can represent excellent opportunities for the academic and scientific community and society in general.

Currently, world society is suffering the consequences of a pandemic caused by a virus called COVID-19, which also affects the field of health and scientific research, which motivated us to carry out this work so that readers can develop comprehensive and accessible research.

This book includes the history, the process, the methodology, the statistics, and other important aspects that make the development of a work of quality and excellence. We hope that through reading it, we can satisfy our readers, depending on the needs that may arise, throughout the development of their research.

CHAPTER I

Brief history about Scientific Research

There exists a close connection between how a human being and his era think; each historic era corresponds to a and predominant way of thinking. Human race, either out of necessity or curiosity needs to evolve and to surpass itself. Through rebellion, every human being breaks each paradigm created for a certain society in a defined period of history. The question is then, when did Science originate? How does it develop over time? And what changes has Science motivated in Human Race and society?

History of Knowledge. Origin of Science

According to History, science originated on the 28th of May, 585 B.C. thanks to Thales of Miletus, who refers to Science when he predicts an eclipse on that date. Thales was a rich merchant of oil who travelled to Babylonia and imported knowledge from there. He is seen as the founder of science as he attributes the origin of things to natural reasons. He was the founder of the Milesian school, the first philosophical schools of ancient Greek. He is the first philosopher who tried to give a rational explanation to events originated in nature. In this way, he detached from explaining natural objects and phenomena by offering naturalistic theories and hypotheses, which was so characteristic in the ancient Greek culture. Since the VI B.C., the Greek started to explain the nature of things rationally, leaving behind the use of mythology to explain the world and the universe.

• Propositions must not be contradictory. They must be in accordance with logical principles.

• The statements must derive from propositions that are consistent or supported by experience.

• Logos was the “explanatory and demonstrative” discourse that opposes and complements with this specific type of discourse without the need to demonstrate, the “mythos”. The “logos” is a historical event.

• The Reason, in the Greeks ´way of conceiving it, was proclaimed itself universal and pretends to transcend (Plato World of Ideas. They are more real than the sensitive world).

• Respect towards Nature. The “physis”/ nature then must be contemplated, admired but not broken or disturbed.

• Magnificence: The reason is part of the Cosmos; it reconciles with ethical values, and it establishes 3 entities:

• Empirical entities: they are those perceived by the senses such as a stone, a drop of water, cube of sugar

• Theoretical entities: they are those that cannot be perceived but can be explained or inferred from knowledge. For e.g., the phlogiston, the black holes among others.

• Fictitious entities: they are objects of the imagination, and they cannot be explained by any theory. For e.g., ghosts, angels, and centaurs.

Aristotle states that simultaneously and under the same relation:

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something, and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is.

Aristotle refers to the Law of Identity. Aristotle states that A is A.

Also, he says that an assertion and its denial can’t coexist accurately at the same time.

It is impossible that an aspect can be attributable and non-attributable to the same object at the same time. Aristotle also refers to the Principle of Contradiction: contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions “A is X” and “A is not X” are mutually exclusive.

An object cannot be white and “not white” at the same time under the same relation.

As we said, two contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time.

Aristotle also refers to the “Law of excluded middle” the two propositions A is X and

A is different from X, only one of them can be true under the same relation.

Episteme vs Doxa

Philosophers make a distinction between common belief or popular opinion, Doxa, and the truly and more justified belief, Episteme. Plato stated that there was a huge difference between the two concepts. For Plato, Episteme was an expression, or a statement that conveys absolute certainty and scientific knowledge. This concept opposed to Doxa, which was framed by Plato, as the opponent of scientific knowledge, such as beliefs, opinions.

The Episteme is the scientific knowledge whereas the Doxa represents subjectivity, knowledge that cannot be accounted for by any scientific method. In this sense, the opinion and beliefs are referred to as “standard knowledge” shared by ordinary people, based on their experience and their social interaction. People´s beliefs in horoscope, the reading of natal charts, the fortune tellers and superstition fall within the domain of the Doxa.

However, at times knowledge can begin with a belief or an opinion (Doxa) and then be explained scientifically, and eventually, become Episteme. An important fact is that Plato disliked the Doxa but even more those who follow that belief, the “Doxoforos”, common people whose thoughts, beliefs and interaction turned into non-sense speeches.

Theocracy and Dogma

Theocracy is a system of government which basis is on divine guidance and is led by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations, and they have adopted it as their form of government and social order.

As we previously said, Theocracy is the form of government conducted by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. The main premise is that there is only one truth, and this derives from divine guidance, in the body of the emperor and his descendance. Also, the Dogma is the principle or the belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted. The Dogmatic Thought is also undebatable, and unquestionable. It does not admit replica or questioning. The medieval monarchies support the dogmatic thought. The Reason in the Medieval era captured the essence of things but solely of those revealed by divinity.

The medieval thoughts captured the essence of things, but only of those revealed by Divinity. The vassal was subordinated to Divinity so because of this faith is above reason and absolute power begins to fade away.

Protoscience

Protoscience is an unscientific field of study which later became a science e.g., astrology becoming astronomy and alchemy becoming chemistry with the introduction of a scientific method. It is a field of study that involves the earliest eras of the history of science when the scientific method was still nascent. The hypotheses may or may not coincide with evidence because the predictions associated have not been verified empirically or can never be due to the limitations about technology. To give an example, the Theory of Relativity was considered protoscience before developing into proper science.

For science, the term protoscience is used to describe a new era represented by the efforts made to become consolidated as proper science. At times, skeptical scientists refer to protoscience as pathological science. Furthermore, they use it to describe a hypothesis that still has not been proved correctly, or even though it is consistent to science, it may be waiting for further research.

Science

The major exponents of science were:

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Italian philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, who was the first to introduce the notion of the abstract; he made fundamental contributions to the sciences of motion, astronomy, and strength of materials and to the development of the scientific method. He was a mathematician at the University of Padua, Italy. He also worked with artisans and described the properties of pendulums and “hydrostatic balances”. He invented the thermoscope and various military compasses. His major challenge was accepting heliocentrism (the Sun assumed to be at a central point) as opposed to the geocentric system (the Earth located centrally).

Francis Bacon: (1561-1626): He argued for the possibility of scientific knowledge based only upon inductive reasoning and careful observation of events in nature. His book “De dignitate et augments scient arum” refers to the empirical theory of knowledge and emphasized the rules of the experimental scientific method; Novum Organum “New organon, or true directions concerning the interpretation of nature”, has positioned him as one of the pioneers in modern scientific theories. According to Francis Bacon, knowledge came from the careful observation of events in nature. Bacon´s reasoning about the logics of the scientific procedure opposes to Aristoteles ´approach. In this sense, human intelligence should be developed to such an extent to conquer nature, topic totally neglected by Aristotle. So, these concepts gave rise to the concept of Empiricism, the theory that held that knowledge or justification came only or primarily from sensory experience. The perception is that human understanding/ knowledge is limited by barriers/obstacles to truth, and it is necessary to get rid of them. Bacon classified these obstacles as follows:

• The idol of the tribe: It is a prejudice inherent in the human condition that leads us to project ourselves onto the world, distorting reality and drawing wrong conclusions.

• Idols of the cave: This refers to the preconceptions formed because of the education received, the theories we draw on to explain the world, or the authority figures we identify with.

• Idols of the square: this refers to the old, ambiguous, and imprecise language This is why words, and the meaning we attribute to them, often become a of utmost importance to understand reality.

• Idols of the theatre: this derives from philosophy, and they are fairy tales represented on stages.

Bacon argued that our natural understanding is a “false mirror” of the world. He introduced the concept of prejudice as a natural condition to which we are all exposed: “The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.

Bacon identified three cases:

• The natural phenomenon takes place: rays from the sun produces hot weather.

• The natural phenomenon does not take place: the moon does not produce hot weather.

• The natural phenomenon assumes different degrees of intensity.

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution, who combined the empiric corroboration and the rational speculation and give birth to science.

René Descartes (1596-1650): The Rationalism-Dualism: The soul: For Descartes the soul is the one who can tell right from wrong. It plays a central role in what we now call “the mind”. The body is determined by the environment and is attributed to the mechanical rational laws per excellence. The discourse of the method is aimed at conducting the reason and seek truth in science. In his second book, Descartes mention four foundations to develop the scientific method.

• Do not consider any fact as absolute truth until it has been supported by the evidence.

• Divide difficulties in as many parts as possible to solve it better.

• Manage your thoughts from simple to most difficult objects, to have access gradually to be able to understand the most complex objects, even assuming the order in which these objects normally precede.

• To make general and methodical versions to ensure not to omit any piece of information.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677): Complexity and Monism. He is a Dutch philosopher, materialist, and atheist. He refutes the concept of God as creator of Nature. He considers that Nature is God by referring to Nature as God. By this, Spinoza means that Nature is the cause itself, that Nature, itself, carries the implicit cause of its own existence and of every object on earth. He criticizes the Dualism of Descartes, and he creates a monist system, Spinoza often emphasizes that human beings, organisms, and ordinary objects are all ‘parts of nature’, yet he seems to insist that nature is not composed of parts. For Spinoza, only objects, human beings or organisms change but Nature itself remains unchanged. About the theory of knowledge, Spinoza follows the rationalism of Descartes, and he considers that authentic knowledge is acquired by the reasoning, without the intervention of the senses.

Immanuel Kant: the Kantian theory reconciles rationalism and empiricism noumenon and phenomena. The distinction between phenomena and noumenon is essential in the Kantian theory. Kant distinguishes two senses in the concepts of noumenon: 1) Negatively, noumenon means a thing-in-itself to the extent that it can be identified by means of sensitive intuition. 2) Positively, means an object can be identified by means of non-sensible intuition that is by intellectual intuition. Now, as we lack intellectual intuition and only possess sensitive intuition our knowledge is limited to the phenomena and subsequently, the concept noumenon remains as a negative concept, as a limit to experience, to “the known”. There is no knowledge of the thing-in-itself, of the noumenon. The access to the thing-in-itself cannot be found in the theoretical reason but in the practical reason. The difference between the phenomena and the noumenon help to understand the reason why Kant refers to his theory as “transcendental idealism” because the space, time and category are possible conditions of phenomena, of the experience and not properties or characteristics of the thing-in-itself.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) He holds the idea of a science centered in sociology. Sociology was prominent in the XIX century. Sociology was considered as the last and the most important of all sciences because it was considered inclusive of all. Its most important legacy is the creation of the existing encyclopedia, the foundation of the positivism, the origin of the word altruism and the way of life associated to it. In other words, men of science have achieved scientific progress and became the foundation of a modernized civilization.

Bertrand Russel (1872-1970). The uncertainty about induction gave rise to positivism or neo-positivism. According to this theory, what is considered science are those facts that are subject to logic and to the empiric verification and gives rise to the verification principle. The members of the circle of Vienna emphasized the logical analysis of language detached from semantic misunderstandings. This doctrine has two objectives: dismiss from the natural sciences all that it is not sensitive to observation and then avoid the attempt to absolute references.

Karl Popper (1902-1994). He was the founder of the Falsificationism or critical rationalism that contrasts a theory or intends to refute it by means of the counterexample. If it is not possible to refute it, then the theory is confirmed and then being accepted provisionally but not verified; any theory is true, at most not refuted.

Imre Lakatos (1922-1974). The science does not provide either certainty or truth. At the beginning Lakatos joins Karl Popper school, but then reformulates the Falsificationism and turns it into a sophisticated Falsificationism to solve the problem of empirical foundations and to avoid Falsificationism because it did not solve the types of Falsificationism: dogmatic and ingenuous. Lakatos incorporates some aspects of Thomas Kuhn theory, such as the importance of the history of science for the philosophy of science. On the one hand, Lakatos questions Popper, because the history of science shows that scientists do not use Falsification as the criteria to dismiss entire theories because Popper defended them for them to develop and improve. On the other hand, for Lakatos, the evidence of the scientific hypothesis is also necessary because it enable them to prevail. The way out for this dilemma lies in the logic of scientific investigation by which the scientific knowledge does not progress by confirming the new laws but by discarding laws that do not oppose to evidence. This is what Popper call Falsification. According to this new interpretation, the scientific task consists mainly in criticizing laws and principles of nature to reduce the number of theories compatible with experimental observations. Lakatos mentions different issues with the “naive” Falsificationism and he bases this belief on the history of science and supports his theory (paraphrasing the famous quote from Kant) that the philosophy of science without the history of science is “empty” and that the history of science without the philosophy of science is “blind”.

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996). He introduces the concept of the influence of sociological and psychological elements in the development of science and paradigm. Kuhn states that the development of science is influenced by the previous knowledge that derives from laws created by scientists or by a community of scientists. This means that to understand science it is necessary to have previous knowledge about the different stages of science development: 1. Define the paradigm; 2. Apply to normal science; 3. Face the crisis; 4. Meet the scientific revolution; 5. Set up a new paradigm.

Paul Feyerabend: (1924-1994). The methodological anarchism. The epistemological anarchism or Dadaism is an epistemological theory that formulates that there are no useful methodological rules that apply to the development of science or knowledge. It supports the idea that science works according to fixed and universal rules, it is not realistic; it is harmful and dangerous to science itself. It suggests an open epistemology, it mentions some tools for scientific research adaptable to each context that are not labelled as fixed rules. The use of the term anarchism reveals the prescription of the methodological pluralism. As the scientific method does not have the monopoly of the truth or of the collection of useful data, the pragmatic approach is an “all fairs” attitude towards methodology.

Jean Piaget: The mind as the doer of “the real”. A constructivist paradigm assumes that knowledge is mental construction, resulted from the cognitive activity of the subject that learns and conceives knowledge as an individual construction made by the remains of what it is still unknown. Therefore, Piaget states that there are multiple subjective truths that derive and build from dialogue.

BIBLIOGRAFIA

Carretero, Mario. ¿Qué es el constructivismo? Consultado el 25 de octubre de 2015.

K. Popper, El criterio del estatuto científico de una teoría es su falsabilidad, refutabilidad o contrastabilidad”. “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge”, 37 (5th ed.) Año 1989.

Feyerabend, Paul. Against HYPERLINK. Año 1993.

Feyerabend, Paul. Tratado contra el método. Madrid: Tecnos. Año 2010.

Jaramillo Uribe, Juan Manuel. Thomas Kuhn. Santiago de Cali: Universidad del Valle. Año 1997.

Jonasse, D. y otros, Constructivism and Computer-Mediated Communication in Distance Education. American Journal of Fistance Education, 9 (2), pp. 7-26. Año 1995.

Kuhn, Thomas S. La estructura de las revoluciones científicas. México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. ISBN 9788437500461. Ario 1972.

Lakatos, Imre. “La metodología de los Programas de investigación científica”. Alianza Editorial. Madrid. Año 1983.

Morin, Edgar. El método. Las ideas. Madrid: Catedra, Año 1992.

Newton-Smith, W.H., La racionalidad de Ia ciencia, Barcelona, Paidós, Año 1981.

Pardo, Carlos Gustavo. La formación intelectual de Thomas S. Kuhn. Una aproximación biográfica a la teoría del desarrollo científico. Pamplona: Euna. ISBN 978-84-313-1900-7. Año 2001.

Paul HYPERLINK “http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feyerabend”-Feyerabend entry by John Preston in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Año 2007.

Perez Porto Julián y Gardey Ana. (2014). Definición de teocracia. Recuperado de: (https://definicion.de/teocracia/), el 4 de noviembre de 2020.

CHAPTER II

Types of knowledge

Throughout their existence, human beings can acquire different types of knowledge that evolve along the time. The types of knowledge vary according to the social, cultural, and professional background of individuals. These types of knowledge cannot be considered as legitimate to avoid making of science an obscure combination of desires and rational affirmations because knowledge can give answers to the mysteries of human beings.

Empirical knowledge

The so-called popular knowledge, it is the type of knowledge acquired through observation, social and cultural interaction of human being with the word around them. This knowledge is the result of common sense and is based on experiences without the need of scientific evidence. In this type of knowledge, there is no critic reflection about the object of observation because it is acquired by means of simple deductions and without concrete evidence. This type of knowledge is not accurate. However, it can be verifiable in simple situations of everyday life. For e.g., a builder who has never attended school knows very accurately how to build a wall just by observing his workmates and learning from them.

Philosophical knowledge

The philosophical knowledge is based on reflection and construction of concepts and ideas derived from the rationale in search of continuous knowledge. The starting point of the “mosaic” knowledge is the capacity of human beings to reflect, mainly, upon subjective, intangible concepts and ideas. For e.g.: the questioning about the social nature of humankind.

Theological knowledge

The theological knowledge is based on religious beliefs and affirms that the absolute truth lies in religion. There is no need of empirical evidence for the “truth” to be accepted by religious knowledge. The theological knowledge is accurate because it refers to a supernatural truth. For e.g.: Adan and Eva were created by God.

Factual knowledge

The factual knowledge is based on experiences supported by evidence and then generates empirical data, but it is also fallible and partially accurate because they are new ideas that can modify theories that were accepted before. This knowledge is supported by evidence because it derives from scientific results. They are based on the coherence between idea and reality. For e.g.: the study about the composition of the substance and the reaction between substances.

Scientific Knowledge

The scientific knowledge is related to logic and the critic and analytical thought. It is the knowledge about facts that can be analyzed and verifiable scientifically. For e.g.: the discovery of the penicillin as a medicine against infectious diseases.

The scientific knowledge and its characteristics

The scientific knowledge is the set of verifiable knowledge that contributes to give sense to reality. It is the type of knowledge that is critic, methodical, verifiable, systematic, standardized, universal, objective, rational that explains facts through law. It is a process of continuous feedback that searches for a rational explanation of reality and the possibility to prevent future events. It is only possible to generate scientific knowledge if there are adequate methods and a critic thought that is not tied to preconceptions or specific interests. Scientifically, it is studied by Epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge; epistemologically the term derives from the Greek (episteme), “knowledge and (logos) “reason”. The conventional definition is “Crucial research of development, methodology and results of sciences”. It is also defined as the field of study about knowledge from a scientific point of view. However, Gnoseology derives from the Greek, gnosis, philosophic theory of knowledge but from a general perspective, it is not limited to science. In practice, Gnoseology is considered as the way to understand knowledge. Humankind absorbs it according to his individual, personal and everyday experience and establishes a connection with the environment and things around him and even with the transcendental.

The main difference between the scientific and the philosophical knowledge is verifiable with science. In science any truth is sensitive to be changed by any research. Konrad Lorenz (Austria, 1903-1989) Austrian physician and zoologist. He was one of the pioneers about the research about the behavior of animals and he summarizes the characteristics of scientific knowledge as follows: “the truth in science can be defined as a hypothesis of work that opens the way to a new hypothesis”. Among the standards that define this knowledge, there are two features that make it unique and characteristic:

1) Scientific knowledge is the result of a contrastive systematic process between a theory or theoretical model and empiric data from reality. The only acceptable method to consider knowledge scientific is through evidence from reality, with empirical, logical, and mathematics evidence.

2) To acquire knowledge, it is necessary to follow certain established procedures to verify its authenticity. In other words, scientific knowledge is based on the implementation of a method of research, which enables not only to build knowledge but also to evaluate its veracity and applicability. The scientific knowledge can be classified into two categories:

• Tacit knowledge: it has to do with the technical, technological, or theoretical knowledge that is innate of an individual. These types of knowledge are part of the individual´s “encyclopedia” about the world and the culture that he has. This kind of knowledge is not acquired through education. Nevertheless, education is an important component of it, but it must be verified empirically and concretely.

• Explicit knowledge: it is the scientific, formal, specialized knowledge that it is acquired through formal education. It is the accumulated scientific knowledge. Some examples are:

• Pythagoras theorem from the Greek philosopher; Pythagoras, who is still subject of research and study at schools and in formal education.

• Biochemical empathy and spectrum of antibiotics since the discovery of the penicillin in the XX century and its administration to fight diseases.

• The explanation for the tremors and earthquakes in the Earth crust.

About the features of the scientific knowledge, it is structured in relation to the interconnection of its elements:

• Theory that implies that the acquired knowledge is valid as long as is based on hypothetical explanations of isolated situations, explained totally or partiall but with the aim to establish hypothetical constructions to solve a new problem.

• Methodology: systematic procedure that guides and organizes reason by deduction or induction, and it is possible to validate or discard any hypothesis or statement.

• Research: process of the scientific knowledge created to solve problems and to prove a theory. From reality to theory.

In accordance with the constituent elements, the scientific knowledge has the following features:

• Systemic: scientific thinking is the foundation of a series of observations and reasoning that lead to a new knowledge.

•Accurate:this kind of knowledge provides concrete and exact answers to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

•Universal:regardless of the place or the era, what scientific knowledge states is fulfilled. The aim is to understand the world, totally and integrally to find only one truth, the universal truth.

•Transformative:it is common belief that the scientific knowledge transforms society and individual´s way of life.

•Analytical:it separates and describes each part of the object of study with the aim to develop a thorough analysis to understand the relationships or mechanisms that define the object.

•Concise:the parts of the problem can be interrelated thoroughly with each other once they are analyzed to formulate a broad-based idea.

•Specific:science analyzes phenomenon and particular situations because it is difficult to think about a universal science.

•Explanatory:the aim of the scientific knowledge is to attempt to understand and explain fact through laws or principles.

•Communicative:scientific knowledge should be clearly explained for everybody to understand.

Factual:the purpose of scientific knowledge is to understand real facts. Therefore, it is connected to experience to determine major objectivity.

•Transcendental:scientific knowledge goes beyond facts. It carries out a continuous research and verification of the object of study.

•Symbolic:it refers to the capacity of abstraction that is generated in the process of thought to make real mental representations and facilitate its explanation. The symbolization represents the analogy of ideas. For e.g.: math formulas.

•Predictive:it can explain the behavior or themes of study either in the present, past or future.

•Provisional:the scientific knowledge should not be considered as final or immutable as it is valid if there exists new scientific research.

•Useful:: the scientific knowledge contributes to the society by providing knowledge and tools that allow the development of human beings after they fully understand the diversity of problems or facts.

•Selective:the object of study of every part of scientific knowledge is different and exclusive.

•Methodic:it uses a systematic, organized, and rigorous procedure to confirm its veracity.

•Objective:it detaches from subjective interpretation or any affective element, seeks to reflect reality as it is and deals with issues of reason.

•Verifiable:this is a key characteristic. There should be a necessary methodology to establish the degree of accuracy that knowledge affirms. The verification is decisive, impersonal and achieved thanks to the observation and experience. The results obtained through scientific knowledge must undergo different tests to verify the results. Every scientific proposition must be verified through rigorous observation and experience to avoid any doubt about the objectivity of truth.

•Critical:the scientific knowledge does not conceive preestablished rules even though they are verified and accepted. For scientific knowledge everything is subject to analysis without influence not even of its own principles.

•Metaphysical:it goes beyond the observable and comprehensible. It affirms that the physic and scientific field is finite and therefore where science ends, philosophy begins but it does not deprive itself of its own philosophy. It questions everything that is known and questions the origin of life and of human kind.

•Unconditioned:it is autonomous, it does not accept either limits or restrictions and it introduces the concept of free will for the act of thinking to know.

Link between thinking and knowledge

To establish a link between thinking and knowledge, it is necessary to revise the historical background and have a vision of the changes through time. Without following the evolution of knowledge, it follows a linear rising process. Becoming conscious of this process may result in regression or acceleration.

Knowledge as a problem

The problem of the individual who is subject of knowledge is to know whether there is knowledge or not and if there is knowledge the question is who knows about it? The issue is that not all the philosophers solve the issue of knowing the world in the same way.

This issue is solved either negatively or positively. In Modern age, Hume and Kant set a standard in skeptical and agnostic schools, which question or doubt the possibility of knowledge.

What is the source of human knowledge? Many philosophers have asked this question and have answered it differently: for some thinkers knowledge comes from reason (Descartes, 1981, Leibniz,1991); others state that knowledge comes from the senses (Locke, 1994, Hume, 1992) and the majority believe that knowledge comes from both reason and senses with the exception that firstly, human beings feel, appreciate and conceive and then think, reflect or speculate (Aristotle, Santo Tomas de Aquino) or that firstly, humans think and then feel (Kant, 1996).

Hume declared that our idea of coincidence consists of more than certain events happen after the other. He believes that human beings do not have any other idea of cause and effect, except that certain objects have coincided and that in former verifications have shown inseparables. To him, in real life, it cannot be said that one fact has caused the other. All that we certainly know is that one fact is associated to other. This concept counteracts coincidence and questions human knowledge.

To Kant (1996) human knowledge has elements from rationalism (contents) and empiricism (experience/senses). They are not contents (Knowledge) but different ways of knowledge(methods). These methods (procedures) get their content from experience (senses). The concepts (rationalism) without intuitions (empiricism) are empty, the institutions (empiricism) without concepts (rationalism) are blind. The cause, a priori, does not proceed from experience, but from thought and reason. This sets up the shape of the empirical elements and builds the objects of knowledge. Thoughts are not conducted either receptively or passively before experience on the contrary they are built spontaneously and actively. It is supposed that the objectives that can be met are those that establish a mediation, a conciliation or arbitration between determinism and indeterminism of reality. These would favor orders, precepts and laws determined by metaphysics (God, reason, historic evolution of peoples or circumstances of nations) about anarchy, disorganization, or disconcert that prevails over reality. The question is what were the needs, lacks or the ontological insufficiencies that try to satisfy, amend, or compensate and try to solve the problem of the origin of knowledge with senses first and then with reason? To Kant (1996) there is no doubt that our knowledge begins with experience. They put in motion the intellectual capacity to compare them, to connect them or separate them and then elaborate a type of knowledge named experience. It denies the possibility to know the thing in itself; it observes the need to make judgement that helps to acquire a better knowledge or reality and at the same time make it necessarily independent from experience.

Popper understands the philosophy of science basically as the theory of scientific knowledge or epistemology. The central issue has been to increase Knowledge and to find the most suitable to acquire and study knowledge. The statements of epistemology as well as the rules of the scientific method will be classified as simple useful conventions to explain the development of the scientific knowledge. To Popper (1974), the progress of Knowledge and of scientific processes is possible thanks to the election of a model to solve the problem.

Descartes, 17th