Javier Andrés Chininín Cabrera

Javier Andrés Chininín Cabrera

Javier Andrés Chininín Cabrera

José Luis Chaca Cordero

José Luis Chaca Cordero
José Luis Chaca Cordero

José Luis Chaca Cordero

Juan Rea Avila

Juan Rea Avila

Micaela Tobar

Micaela Tobar

Geovanna Puma

Geovanna Puma

Anghela Tamayo Saquicela

Anghela Tamayo Saquicela

Sebastián Pozo Delgado

Sebastián Pozo Delgado

Sebastián Pozo Delgado

Andrea Tepan Plaza

Andrea Tepan Plaza

Juan Rea Avila

Juan Rea Avila

Romel Cordova Cabrera

Romel Cordova Cabrera

Pauleth Morales Aucapiña
Pauleth Morales Aucapiña
Gabriela Orellana Iñiguez
Gabriela Orellana Iñiguez
Paul Hernandez
Paul Hernandez
Doménica Cardenas Montaño
Doménica Cardenas Montaño

Sofia Tenorio Rodas

Sofia Tenorio Rodas

Osmar Rosero Arteaga

Osmar Rosero Arteaga

Juan Diego Cabrera Cordova

Juan Diego Cabrera Cordova

Ma. José Guichay Alvarez

Ma. José Guichay Alvarez

Alvaro Fernandez Sacotto

Alvaro Fernandez Sacotto

Ma. De los Angeles Zhingri

Ma. De los Angeles Zhingri

Ana Maria León Ramírez
Ana Maria León Ramírez
José Daniel Crespo Montaño
Jose Daniel Crespo Montaño
1. We have talked that science is based on hypothesis, theories and laws. But, I would like to know wh
law? (10)
2. This question is more related to the scientific society. I know that there exist some punishments when
But, I do not know what happens when there are some interpretations of a phenomenon, that after their pu
false but there was not any intention to commit a fraud. May you explain these situations better? (11)
3. Regarding the third question, is this situation of having wrong interpretations an example  of a bad intern

Can we use different perspectives in any kind of area? I mean, can we apply "interpretive science" in eng
in social science or these perspectives are specific for each area of knowledge?
Can we combine some methods?
Can you give us more details about idiosyncratic observations?
Which are the differences between idiosyncratic observations and observations that we use in researc
idiosyncratic observation?

Using the principle of skepticism. After conducting an experiment. How do we know that the conclusi
the principle states that no truth is absolutely correct
About knowledge, there is knowledge but not scientific in this case. How can this non-scientific know
do we know that this knowledge is true?

As stated in lecture 10, scientific investigation may be at its best when multiple methods are combined. No
find ourselves interacting with the subject of the study while we are just observing it, namely, light and how
particle or a wave. This is the only phenomena that we know behaves this way, but there might be simil
happens. In that case, can my approach be considered as positivistic? Or must I mention my interactio
ultimately change an outcome, giving me multiple realities like an interpretive science? 
On the other hand, as I understand it, my research must be significant in some way that it is possible to
predicting outcomes with a new set of conditions or variables. I must also be aware that my research can
wondering if/when the predictions are proven wrong or incorrect, and does that affect the validity of
generalization of said results?

I understand that a scientist must dispose their data obtained from studies for another researcher who wa
must accept the idea that they may be incorrect. So my question is ... How many people should analyze th
first researcher who obtained it to get a little certainty that their study could be correct?
About the idiosyncratic examples I have a question both in weight measurement and in the example of a c
understand that as such these data are not considered science, but the process over time to obtain those
science? Since they serve for future research or a means of arriving at some data.

For Lecture 10. Can you give us examples of positivist, interpretative and design science? I could not und
in this topic.
Also in Lecture 11, I want to know if there are some kinds of requirements for knowledge to be cons
question because I have could read about homeopathy and it is an object of controversy in the science
detractors but it is considered as a pseudoscience.

In the lecture, Professor Piet Vanden Abelee presented three scientific perspectives. Are there other scien
What is the difference between not-science and non-science? In the lecture, there were some examples
difference.
There are a lot of researches about different branches related to this field in the business or economic
lecture. Could we consider economics or business as a science? Or Do these fields only have to use scien
In lecture 10, the professor talked about the importance of verifying scientific research.
What happens if you verify results and/or conclusions of a scientific investigation and don't get the same re
Can non scientific knowledge turn into scientific knowledge? 
Using the principle of skepticism. After conducting an experiment. How do we know that the conclusions
principle states that no truth is absolutely correct
About knowledge, there is knowledge but not scientific in this case. How can this non-scientific kno
how do we know that this knowledge is true?
How does a certain person replicate scientific knowledge, do he need any previous information of a
through experience?
Why is scientific knowledge socially constructed? can a particular person (resercher) make scientifi
help of others?
What steps could be followed if we have the possibility to convert non scientific knowledge into scientific kn
What happens if you verify results and conclusions of a scientific investigation and do not get  the same re
Whatadvantageous
How process wouldisbe considere
having open as the “process
publications? trace”? And
Considering what
the kind of arguments
information plagiarism.or evidence would

Why does the knowledge of a scientific does not claim centainty if they verify everything ?
How can we improve the mere observation ?
How to know if an investigation is verifiable and if it is able to replicate?
For example, if you are studying a city (universe), can you get to generalize the results obtained at the cou

How is positivism applicable in scientific research? Currently in scientifics studies more qualitative and qua
which a large number of variables are taken into account, so how can we apply the principle of a single tru
Is the correct interpretation of results considered science? How important is the data finding, or the scientif
interpretation of the data is not right? One of these only by itself can be considered science?
How can I be sure that the approach chosen for my research is the best in relation with my study field ?
If I  take all the information in a Medical History of a population of patients , and I only want to know the nu
did last year and count them .This can be considered science? 
In lecture 10. Piet mentioned that science can be developed in 3 ways: Positivist, interpretive and design. S
the methodologies ? and What value can take the results?
In lecture 11. Can you explain in a better way, why using technology is not science. Does a complex equip
once it has been finished
Piet said that scientific knowledge must be replicable and it is true in some cases such as positivist scienci
interpretative scienciense the researcher is a primary element immersed in the reality, so he or she is direc
information obtained. Therefore, it is hard to replicate the same result of the investigation if it is done by an
results are scientific knowledge too, and have different value methodologies  for obtaining the results. So t
characteristic be fulfilled in this approach to interpretive science?
Regarding the second question,  my area of knowledge wants not to generalize but wants to understand o
of scientific knowledge fulfill this requirement?and how important it is for the academy to try to understand
realities?
Lesson 10: does working on teams help to avoid science from being subjective? Where can we draw the  li
approach on the matter and it being subjective?
Lesson 11: if I take another scientific study and make it broader, prove it things beyond what it was origina
make new conclusions, is that work fully mine or should I share credit with whoever stated the base study?
Based on the fact that our scientific research must be verifiable and replicable. People who try to draw thei
say, from the objective to the subjective, will always be oriented to approve or accept it according to their c
Scientific beliefs and religious beliefs, which are not based on scientific knowledge: How can they be set a

How can we distinguish if a study is based on a subjective perspective, or which tools can we use to avoid
In which conditions, can we extrapolate the results of a study? Can we take for granted that the results will
How can we know if a research study is verifiable and reproducible? and what is it important for?
Why not-shared knowledge cannot be considered scientific?
ent population?