Question

imagine you have just conducted what you believe is a well-designed ground breaking research. You have conducted the research and analyzed your findings. You can think in generalities, or think of some specific topic area where this could happen. If your findings seemed to contradict what you believed about scripture, how would you reconcile that? It's not as easy as saying, "I would just follow the scriptures." First, because you could be wrong in your understanding of scripture, or you could have made some error in the research design. Second, because now that you have discovered something in your research, there is some level of obligation to present it to the public, even though you don't like or agree with the findings. How would you reconcile this in your mind? What actions might it lead you to take? And how would you present the research to the public in light of the apparent discrepancy?

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary. Also, I’ve answered in a way that I would personally handle the situation. You may change parts that you would handle differently.

(Answer) How would you reconcile this in your mind?

Handling a situation with opposing ideas is always something that is easier said than done. When such an issue is presented on paper, it becomes fairly easy to pick a side and stick with it. However, the reality would be different simply because writing about the steps and consequences of picking a side is different from actually facing the consequences.

Since facing consequences might be difficult for any scientific individual with strong convictions, the first step might be to reinterpret the findings. In doing so, one might be able to check the analysis once more and make sure that there are no errors.

When a conclusion is in disagreement with a hypothesis, it is essential to have substantial proof through a viable research methodology. In such a case, a mere correlation coefficient would not suffice as there could be a confounding variable. In such a case, it would be essential to have variations on the experiment to make room for any other variables that weren’t previously considered.

Once this is all accomplished and the evidence and conclusion, concretely proves an opposing ideology, it would be at least mentally reconciled that the theory is formidable.

What actions might it lead you to take?

A doctor is bound to a Hippocratic Oath. This means that a surgeon is supposed to treat a patient regardless of them being a sworn enemy or criminal. Furthermore, at its core, the oath would entail that a man of science be true to the practice.

This is why a man or woman of science would essentially have to support what is true, even at a time of such a conflict of interest.

Even if a study goes against one’s convictions, a scientist would be obligated to support the truth of the evidence.

And how would you present the research to the public in light of the apparent discrepancy?

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge the human or ethical side of the situation before adhering to the scientific truth.

If a particular finding would negate one’s beliefs, it would be important to announce one’s adherence or loyalties to their convictions despite the findings. Such issues are not merely black and white. They can be complicated and hurt human emotions and faith. This is why it is essential to handle it delicately by expressing the strength of one’s own beliefs.

Secondly, it would be essential to properly present the facts and let the public decide how they would feel about the discrepancy.