Testability (falsifiability).

Even if you believe that human made logic is superior to nature,
you also have to believe that all logics can be reduced to 'rationality'

So the answer is no, falsifiability is non-sense

An example of falsifiability is the statement "All swans are white." This statement can be falsified by simply finding a single black swan, which would disprove the claim that all swans are white.

Falsifiability is important in science because it allows theories and hypotheses to be tested and potentially proven wrong. This helps ensure that scientific ideas are based on evidence and can be revised or discarded if they are found to be incorrect.

Falsifiability is important in psychology because it ensures that scientific theories and hypotheses can be tested and potentially disproven. This helps to distinguish between empirical research and pseudoscience, leading to more reliable and valid findings in the field of psychology. By following the principle of falsifiability, psychologists can build knowledge that is grounded in evidence and withstands scrutiny.

Falsifiability in scientific theories means they can be proven wrong through experimentation or observation. For example, the theory of gravity can be falsified if an object falls upwards instead of downwards. Another example is the theory of evolution, which could be falsified if no transitional fossils were ever found.

The principle of falsifiability is a criterion used in scientific inquiry to determine whether a hypothesis or theory can be proven false through empirical testing. According to this principle, a scientific statement must be specific enough to be tested and potentially refuted through observations or experiments in order to be considered meaningful and valid.

Science is based on the principle of falsifiability. It is necessary to develop a hypothesis based on the current understanding. You then make a prediction and design tests or experiments which will either disprove the hypothesis or add support in favour of the scientific theory.

Falsifiability is a concept in science that asserts that for a hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false through empirical testing or observation. In other words, a scientific claim should be testable and potentially disprovable in order to be considered valid within the scientific method.

The scientific process is the seek of rational and reliable claim. Any idea to develop to scientific theory must pass the falsifiability test. The test procedure must be reviewed to exclude any bias of human judgement. The evidence result must be examined for margin of error.

falsifiability. This principle suggests that for a scientific claim to be valid, it must be testable and potentially refutable through evidence and observation. By being able to be disproven, scientific claims can be rigorously tested and evaluated for accuracy.

The criteria of demarcation, proposed by Karl Popper, distinguish science from non-science by the principle of falsifiability. According to Popper, a statement or theory is scientific if it can be tested and potentially falsified through empirical observation. This demarcation helps establish the boundaries of science by focusing on the ability to test and potentially disprove hypotheses.

The basis of scientific knowledge is empirical evidence obtained through observation, experimentation, and testing. This evidence is used to formulate hypotheses, theories, and models that explain natural phenomena and can be revised or updated based on new evidence. Scientific knowledge is also built on the principles of objectivity, reproducibility, and falsifiability.

This concept is known as falsifiability, a key principle in the philosophy of science proposed by Karl Popper. A hypothesis is considered scientific if it can be tested and potentially disproven through empirical evidence. This criterion helps distinguish scientific theories from those that are untestable or unfalsifiable.

Popper's theory of scientific revolutions emphasizes falsifiability and the importance of testing hypotheses through experimentation. Kuhn's theory, on the other hand, focuses on paradigm shifts and the idea that scientific progress occurs through revolutions in thought rather than incremental changes.

What distinguishes science from irrational belief is that scientific theories must be falsifiable. Falsifiability requires testing predictions which are made using scientific theory. A prediction that checks out adds support to the theory whereas a prediction that does not check out means that either the theory is faulty and needs modification (or scrapping), or that the theory was not used properly in making the prediction.

Observation of the process in nature. Google ring species. The erection of testable hypothesis. The experimental testing of these hypothesis. Google Lenski and the E. Coli experiment. Repeatability and analogous experiments. Google artificial selection. Falsifiability. A way to show the hypothesis can be rejected. Fossil bunnies in the pre-Cambrian.

The problem of induction is the challenge of justifying the assumption that past experiences can reliably predict future events. Some proposed solutions include using Bayesian reasoning to update beliefs based on new evidence, incorporating falsifiability criteria to test hypotheses, and considering the role of background knowledge in making inductive inferences.

Karl Popper was known for his contributions to the philosophy of science. He introduced the concept of falsifiability as a criterion for distinguishing scientific theories from non-scientific ones. Popper argued that a scientific theory should be testable and potentially refutable through empirical evidence.

A scientist is any working professional in any of the sciences, most commonly the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and biology. Scientists are sometimes referred to as knowledge workers, because the work they perform is directed toward the goal of acquiring new knowledge or confirming existing knowledge. Scientists diligently investigate in order to develop working hypotheses followed by repeated experiments to arrive at a conclusion which determines verifiability or falsifiability.

The credibility of a theory depends on multiple factors, including empirical evidence, predictive power, and falsifiability. Currently, widely accepted scientific theories such as evolution, gravity, and the germ theory of disease are considered very credible due to the extensive evidence supporting them and their ability to accurately explain and predict phenomena in the natural world.

One influential philosopher of science is Karl Popper, known for his idea of falsifiability in scientific theories. Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" revolutionized the understanding of how scientific knowledge progresses. Imre Lakatos developed the concept of research programs to explain the evolution of scientific theories.

Science is separated from non-science by the criteria of falsifiability. Religion study can't be proved to be false for the statement "God created the universe" and so it is nonscience. Philosophy is base on scenario and logic and mostly can't be prove whether one would be truer than other and thus is nonscience. Mathematics fall in the same category as Philosophy though it is the great tool in science but the pure Math is nonscience. Literature is also the study outside realm of science for it is the emotional quality and not the matter that can be prove if it is right or wrong.

The characteristic of falsifiability is a key aspect that distinguishes science from non-science or other disciplines. Scientific theories must be testable and potentially disprovable through observations or experiments, allowing for the refinement of knowledge based on evidence. This emphasis on empirical evidence and the ability to revise theories based on new data is unique to the scientific method.

It is generally accepted that the main characteristic of any science, which distinguishes it from other forms of knowledge, is falsifiability. For any scientific theory it must be possible to make predictions that can be tested.

Unfortunately, this requirement means that any non-trivial mathematical system cannot be part of science. Kurt Godel proved that any mathematical system that was worth having had to include statements whose truth or falsehood could not be proven without appealing to a more sophisticated system. But then that system contained statements whose truth value could not be ascertained ... and so on.

1. Fossil record showing transitional forms between different species.
2. Comparative anatomy showing similarities in anatomy across different species.
3. Comparative embryology showing similarities in early stages of development.
4. Biogeography showing distribution of species supports evolutionary relationships.
5. Molecular biology showing similarities in DNA sequences among different species.

No, because science is based off of observation. Scientists use experimentation and observation to explain the world around us. However, the scientific theories they come up with are only as good as the experiments and observations they make.

When something is proven over and over again, people usually accept it as true (like the existence of gravity). However, many scientific theories have been disproven later on throughout history, meaning science isn't always 'true'.

Language is fundamental to science as it allows scientists to communicate research findings, share knowledge, and collaborate with others in the field. Through language, scientists can describe observations, propose theories, and present results in a way that can be understood and evaluated by their peers. Clear and precise language is crucial for the advancement of scientific knowledge and for ensuring that research is accurate and reproducible.

The Law of Falsifiability, proposed by philosopher Karl Popper, states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be capable of being proven false through empirical evidence. In other words, a scientific hypothesis should be testable and potentially disprovable to be considered valid in the scientific community.

I'm not sure if I completely understand what you are trying to convey with this question but if I get what you're saying then the technique would be the scientific method.

In layman's terms the scientific method essentially involves the following basic steps: ask question, do background research, construct hypothesis, test with an experiment, analyze results and draw a conclusion, finally you'll want to determine if your hypothesis is correct of false. If it is false you may want to rethink it or just modify it in some way. If your hypothesis is correct you may want to proceed with reporting your results to the scientific community for peer review.

I also urge you to consider inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The latter involves basically the process of elimination and experimentation. The former is when you already have substantial evidence for your idea about what is going on.

Anyway, there is much literature about this topic so if you are interested I urge you to pursue this further. You may want to read some works about research methodology. A good book that will explain good research practice is: How To Think Straight About Psychology by Keith E. Stanovich. Even if you are not interested in psychology this book basically clarifies the different misconceptions that people have about good research practice. This book is will give you the proper insight about falsifiability and proper data collection methods.

Best Wishes!

Science is the process of determining that which can be known about the natural world.

Anecdote and opinion are not disregarded, but are, rather, treated as precisely what they are, narrative stories and personal observations or beliefs.

Because human beings are capable of creating fiction, and because human beings are relatively poor and biased observers, ALL observational claims and all narrative stories must be treated skeptically as potentially fictitious, or erroneous.
Even a theory is nothing more than an opinion, and as such, must be suspect of error or bias.

Science subjects all ideas, anecdotes and opinions to verification.
That is, it does not matter what you claim to be reliably true.. science demands that you must be able to Demonstrate that it is reliably, replicably true.

Also, sincerity has no bearing on science. all delusions seem real to the deluded... You can be absolutely convinced that you saw a ghost, but if you can not demonstrate to anyone else unequivocal evidence of a ghost, then you have no way of proving that your experience was not entirely in your own head.

Science treats even the grandest hypothesis as if it is no better than opinion.
Science even treats experimental results as being no better than anecdote.

All ideas are subject to falsifiability...
All results are verified thru other scientists repeating your experiments to determine if your observations can be trusted to be accurate.


Only when theory has been repeatedly proven to predict observation, only when repeated experimentation has consistently provided the same results does science invest any claim with provisional acceptance.

Scientists generally support the theory of evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on Earth, based on evidence from fields such as biology, genetics, and paleontology. Creationism, which posits that life was created by a divine being, is a belief held by some but is not considered a scientific theory due to lack of empirical evidence and falsifiability.

Answer 1

Intelligent design means that some sort of "designer" started life on earth. This was thought to have happened about 5-6, 000 years ago. It was also thought that the the sun and all the planets revolved round the earth. Many scientists have show that this can not be true. Our ideas of how life started has changed over time. This is actually the definition of evolution.

Answer 2

Science is the process by which we formulate testable, verifiable and falsifiable explanations for observed phenomena. As an example, evolutionary theory explains our observations in biology and palaeontology in terms of what we know about genetics and population dynamics. Falsifiability of such a thesis is an important component of its testability: without being able to distinguish between the truth and falsehood of a claim, we cannot determine how likely it is to be true. The problem with "intelligent design" is that it has not (yet?) formulated a statement that is both verifiable and falsifiable. "Intelligent design" is simply the statement that "some intelligent designer was involved". However, without knowing something about the nature, methods, motivations and, most importantly, the limitationsof this designer, it is an impossible claim to falsify. For instance, the statement "because some intelligent designer was involved" applies equally well to "why is life organized in a series of nested hierarchies?" as to "why is the planet Earth shaped like a triangle?". Basically, the claim "because some intelligent designer was involved" could be used to answer any question, no matter how ridiculous, without actually explaining anything.

Therefore, until "intelligent design" comes up with a testable model to match their claims, the notion cannot be considered scientific.

The study of God's nature and religious truth is known as theology. It involves exploring and understanding beliefs, practices, and teachings within various religious traditions to gain insight into the nature of divinity and spirituality. Theology often involves critical analysis, interpretation, and philosophical reflection on religious texts and doctrines.

It must be testable in order to be found true or false.

-Apex

Pseudoscience is usually identified by the following criteria: # Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims # Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation # Lack of openness to testing by other experts # Absence of progress # Personalization of issues # Use of misleading language If you take astrology as an example; it qualifies (in spades) under criteria 1, 2 and 4: astrological predictions are classically vague, "negative" results are often ignored, essentially astrology is the same as it was thousands of years ago.

A scientific theory cannot be proven true, but it can be supported by evidence through repeated testing and observation. If a theory consistently predicts and explains phenomena accurately, it is considered reliable until new evidence suggests otherwise. Science is always open to revision based on new data.

Nowadays, it’s much easier to commodify an idea. If you have promising startup solutions or inventive ideas in mind, launching your Minimum Viable Product (MVP) has never been easier. With the digital space in full force today, virtually anything is possible. The advent of No Code has awakened a growing pool of creatives and visionaries who build software without writing code.

Citizen developers continue to signify the beginning of an era, and visual programming tools like bubble.io and Honeycode shape how the future of creating applications will look. With no-code technology in place, MVP development has allowed more entrepreneurs to test the waters and brave the evolving world of consumerism.

Defining MVP

At its core, an MVP is the initial version of a product you wish to launch and is fundamentally the most basic version of its kind. Designed to gather your target market’s initial responses, MVPs are created with an ample number of features to gauge whether a more advanced version should be worth it. Think of the project as a prototype, meant to evaluate how willing your audience is to pay for what you have to offer.

By utilizing, bubble.io, for instance, you can successfully reach out to your market while significantly reducing the risks and costs conventional software development would have posed.

In summary, the definitive characteristics of an MVP—

Include just the right numbers of features enough to check if customers are willing to pay.

Demonstrate enough value and functionalities for potential development.

Provide a complete feedback cycle to steer future development.

Unsurprisingly, as the increasing figure of entrepreneurs and leaders follow the Lean Product Playbook, MVP has only become a more overused buzzword in the startup community. So much so, there’s also been constant disagreements about the idea’s intent, inclusions, and coverage.

If anything, it’s best if entrepreneurs and creatives approached MVPs primarily as a process and not sales quota targets. MVPs are supposed to be an experiment fashioned to assess your value proposition’s biases by measuring a trend and learning from the results.

To reiterate and reword, an MVP doesn’t have to come in the form of a tangible product, nor does it have to be a finished creation. As a matter of fact, Buffer and Dropbox were merely composed of a video and a landing page before these brands enjoy the mainstream status they do today. What validated these wild concepts came in the shape of overwhelming pre-release sign-ups.

How The Development Cycle Of MVP Looks Like

The development cycle of MVP is composed of four main phases:

Ideation — this involves defining your idea, creating prototypes, and evaluating its feasibility within your means.

Creation — this involves building or producing a product designed to test a market’s reaction.

Deployment — this involves gradually shipping your MVP to your audience while constantly gathering feedback.

Continued development — this includes correcting and changing what should be improved based on user feedback.

Where No Code Fits The Picture

Much can be said about the No Code movement, and depending on who you ask, the priority and order of advantages can vary. Still, there are two leading aspects an MVP can benefit from with No Code.

Independence

While it sure helps to have the support of computer experts, relying on a whole team of software engineers and traditional coders is out of the picture. Because no-code platforms are generally easy to navigate and optimize, you’re spared from having to shell out insane amounts of cash to employ coding developers. This allows you to pick up the technology and better focus on your market yourself.

Hypothesis

Circling back to its essence, an MVP is predominantly about what you want to learn. So regardless of what you build, your hypothesis should hinge on your process’ falsifiability, so you know when it’s time to move on.

Other very apparent reasons to resort to No Code are speed, agility, and affordability. Although anyone can argue that the software you build through visual programming platforms pale compared to what you could create with coding, it’s crucial to understand that conventional app development is costly and takes time. When you build with modular blocks ready for dragging and dropping, you unlock a universe of possibilities, albeit “limited.” Leaders are more able to easily customize on the spot and publish updates as soon as possible.

We live in a fast-paced world, and the modern entrepreneur knows exactly how much of a luxury time is. That being said, it’s only right for more leaders to take on no-code projects moving forward.

Paranormal is a general term that describes unusual experiences that lack a scientific explanation,[1] or phenomena alleged to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.[2] In parapsychology, it is used to describe the potentially psychic phenomena of telepathy, extra-sensory perception, psychokinesis, ghosts, and hauntings. The term is also applied to UFOs, some creatures that fall under the scope of cryptozoology, purported phenomena surrounding the Bermuda Triangle, and other non-psychic subjects.[3] Stories relating to paranormal phenomena are found in popular culture and folklore, but the scientific community, as referenced in statements made by organization such as the United States National Science Foundation, contends that scientific evidence does not support paranormal beliefs.[4] Paranormal research Approaching the paranormal from a research perspective is often difficult because of the lack of acceptance of the physical reality of most of the purported phenonema. By definition, the paranormal does not conform to conventional expectations of the natural. Despite this challenge, studies on the paranormal are periodically conducted by researchers all from various disciplines. Some researchers study just the beliefs in the paranormal regardless of whether the phenomena are considered to objectively exist. This section deals with various approaches to the paranormal: anecdotal, experimental, and participant-observer approaches, the skeptical investigation approach and the survey approach. An anecdotal approach to the paranormal involves the collection of stories told about the paranormal. Such collections, lacking the rigour of empirical evidence, are not amenable to be subjected to scientific investigation. The anecdotal approach is not a scientific approach to the paranormal because it leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence. It is also subject to such logical fallacies as cognitive bias, inductive reasoning, lack of falsifiability, and other fallacies that may prevent the anecdote from having meaningful information to impart. Nevertheless, it is a common approach to paranormal phenomena. Charles Fort (1874-1932) is perhaps the best known collector of paranormal anecdotes. Fort is said to have compiled as many as 40,000 notes on unexplained paranormal experiences, though there were no doubt many more than these. These notes came from what he called "the orthodox conventionality of Science", which were odd events originally reported in magazines and newspapers such as The Times and scientific journals such as Scientific American, Nature and Science. From this research Fort wrote seven books, though only four survive. These are: The Book of the Damned (1919), New Lands (1923), Lo! (1931) and Wild Talents (1932); one book was written between New Lands and Lo! but it was abandoned and absorbed into Lo!. Reported events that he collected include teleportation (a term Fort is generally credited with coining); poltergeist events, falls of frogs, fishes, inorganic materials of an amazing range; crop circles; unaccountable noises and explosions; spontaneous fires; levitation; ball lightning (a term explicitly used by Fort); unidentified flying objects; mysterious appearances and disappearances; giant wheels of light in the oceans; and animals found outside their normal ranges (see phantom cat). He offered many reports of OOPArts, abbreviation for "out of place" artifacts: strange items found in unlikely locations. He also is perhaps the first person to explain strange human appearances and disappearances by the hypothesis of alien abduction, and was an early proponent of the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Fort is considered by many as the father of modern paranormalism, which is the study of the paranormal. The magazine Fortean Times continues Charles Fort's approach, regularly reporting anecdotal accounts of the paranormal. [edit] Parapsychology Participant of a Ganzfeld experiment which proponents say may show evidence of telepathy. Main article: Parapsychology Experimental investigation of the paranormal has been conducted by parapsychologists. Although parapsychology has its roots in earlier research, it began using the experimental approach in the 1930s under the direction of J. B. Rhine (1895 – 1980).[5] Rhine popularized the now famous methodology of using card-guessing and dice-rolling experiments in a laboratory in the hopes of finding a statistical validation of extra-sensory perception.[5] In 1957, the Parapsychological Association was formed as the preeminent society for parapsychologists. In 1969, they became affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That affiliation, along with a general openness to psychic and occult phenomena in the 1970s, led to a decade of increased parapsychological research.[5] During this time, other notable organizations were also formed, including the Academy of Parapsychology and Medicine (1970), the Institute of Parascience (1971), the Academy of Religion and Psychical Research, the Institute for Noetic Sciences (1973), and the International Kirlian Research Association (1975). Each of these groups performed experiments on paranormal subjects to varying degrees. Parapsychological work was also conducted at the Stanford Research Institute during this time.[5] With the increase in parapsychological investigation, there came an increase in opposition to both the findings of parapsychologists and the granting of any formal recognition of the field. Criticisms of the field were focused in the founding of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (1976), now called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, and its periodical, Skeptical Inquirer.[5] Eventually, more mainstream scientists became critical of parapsychology as an endeavor, and statements by the National Academies of Science and the National Science Foundation cast a pall on the claims of evidence for parapsychology. Today, many cite parapsychology as an example of a pseudoscience. Though there are still some parapsychologists active today, interest and activity has waned considerably since the 1970s.[6] To date there have been no experimental results that have gained wide acceptance in the scientific community as valid evidence of the paranormal. [6] [edit] Participant-observer approach Ghost hunters taking an EMF reading which proponents say may show evidence of ghosts. While parapsychologists look for quantitative evidence of the paranormal in laboratories, a great number of people immerse themselves in qualitative research through participant-observer approaches to the paranormal. Participant-observer methodologies have overlaps with other essentially qualitative approaches as well, including phenomenological research that seeks largely to describe subjects as they are experienced, rather than to explain them.[7] Participant-observation suggests that by immersing oneself in the subject being studied, a researcher is presumed to gain understanding of the subject. Criticisms of participant-observation as a data-gathering technique are similar to criticisms of other approaches to the paranormal, but also include an increased threat to the objectivity of the researcher, unsystematic gathering of data, reliance on subjective measurement, and possible observer effects (observation may distort the observed behavior).[8] Specific data gathering methods, such as recording EMF readings at haunted locations have their own criticisms beyond those attributed to the participant-observation approach itself. The participant-observer approach to the paranormal has gained increased visibility and popularity through reality-based television shows like Ghost Hunters, and the formation of independent ghost hunting groups which advocate immersive research at alleged paranormal locations. One popular website for ghost hunting enthusiasts lists over 300 of these organizations throughout the United States and the United Kingdom.[9] [edit] Skeptical scientific investigation James Randi is a well-known investigator of paranormal claims. Scientific skeptics advocate critical investigation of claims of paranormal phenomena: applying the scientific method to reach a rational, scientific explanation of the phenomena to account for the paranormal claims, taking into account that alleged paranormal abilities and occurrences are sometimes hoaxes or misinterpretations of natural phenomena. A way of summarizing this method is by the application of Occam's razor, which suggests that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.[10] The standard scientific models gives an explanation for what appears to be paranormal phenomena is usually a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or anomalous variation of natural phenomena, rather than an actual paranormal phenomenon. The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), is an organisation that aims to publicise the scientific, skeptical approach. It carries out investigations aimed at understanding paranormal reports in terms of scientific understanding, and publishes its results in its journal, the Skeptical Inquirer. Former stage magician, James Randi, is a well-known investigator of paranormal claims[11] and a prominent member of CSICOP. As an investigator with a background in illusion, Randi feels that the simplest explanation for those claiming paranormal abilities is often trickery, illustrated by demonstrating that the spoon bending abilities of psychic Uri Geller can easily be duplicated by trained magicians.[12] He is also the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation and its famous million dollar challenge offering a prize of US $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties.[13]

There is no specific deity known as the "God of Contradictions" in traditional mythologies or religions. The concept of contradictions can be explored through philosophical discussions on logic and paradoxes.

The Big Bang theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation, the redshift of galaxies, and the abundance of light elements in the universe. These pieces of evidence collectively suggest that the universe originated from a hot, dense state around 13.8 billion years ago, expanding and evolving into its current state.

how the science is mentioned and understood. It does not refer to how what the results are but how they are figured. Glenn Firebaugh summarizes the principles for good research in his book Seven Rules for Social Research. The first rule is that "There should be the possibility of surprise in social research." As Firebaugh (p. 1) elaborates: "Rule 1 is intended to warn that you don't want to be blinded by preconceived ideas so that you fail to look for contrary evidence, or you fail to recognize contrary evidence when you do encounter it, or you recognize contrary evidence but suppress it and refuse to accept your findings for what they appear to say." In addition, good research will "look for differences that make a difference" (Rule 2) and "build in reality checks" (Rule 3). Rule 4 advises researchers to replicate, that is, "to see if identical analyses yield similar results for different samples of people" (p. 90). The next two rules urge researchers to "compare like with like" (Rule 5) and to "study change" (Rule 6); these two rules are especially important when researchers want to estimate the effect of one variable on another (e.g. how much does college education actually matter for wages?). The final rule, "Let method be the servant, not the master," reminds researchers that methods are the means, not the end, of social research; it is critical from the outset to fit the research design to the research issue, rather than the other way around. Explanations in social theories can be idiographic or nomothetic. An idiographic approach to an explanation is one where the scientists seek to exhaust the idiosyncratic causes of a particular condition or event, i.e. by trying to provide all possible explanations of a particular case. Nomothetic explanations tend to be more general with scientists trying to identify a few causal factors that impact a wide class of conditions or events. For example, when dealing with the problem of how people choose a job, idiographic explanation would be to list all possible reasons why a given person (or group) chooses a given job, while nomothetic explanation would try to find factors that determine why job applicants in general choose a given job. Research in science and in social science is a long, slow and difficult process that sometimes produces false results because of methodological weaknesses and in rare cases because of fraud, so that reliance on any one study is inadvisable. The ethics of social research are shared with those of medical research. In the United States, these are formalized by the Belmont report as: The principle of respect for persons holds that (a) individuals should be respected as autonomous agents capable of making their own decisions, and that (b) subjects with diminished autonomy deserve special considerations. A cornerstone of this principle is the use of informed consent. The principle of beneficence holds that (a) the subjects of research should be protected from harm, and, (b) the research should bring tangible benefits to society. By this definition, research with no scientific merit is automatically considered unethical. The principle of justice states the benefits of research should be distributed fairly. The definition of fairness used is case-dependent, varying between "(1) to each person an equal share, (2) to each person according to individual need, (3) to each person according to individual effort, (4) to each person according to societal contribution, and (5) to each person according to merit." The following list of research methods is not exhaustive: The origin of the survey can be traced back at least early as the Domesday Book in 1086, while some scholars pinpoint the origin of demography to 1663 with the publication of John Graunt's Natural and Political Observations upon the Bills of Mortality. Social research began most intentionally, however, with the positivist philosophy of science in the early 19th century. Statistical sociological research, and indeed the formal academic discipline of sociology, began with the work of Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). While Durkheim rejected much of the detail of Auguste Comte's philosophy, he retained and refined its method, maintaining that the social sciences are a logical continuation of the natural ones into the realm of human activity, and insisting that they may retain the same objectivity, rationalism, and approach to causality. Durkheim set up the first European department of sociology at the University of Bordeaux in 1895, publishing his Rules of the Sociological Method (1895). In this text he argued: "[o]ur main goal is to extend scientific rationalism to human conduct. ... What has been called our positivism is but a consequence of this rationalism."Durkheim's seminal monograph, Suicide (1897), a case study of suicide rates among Catholic and Protestant populations, distinguished sociological analysis from psychology or philosophy. By carefully examining suicide statistics in different police districts, he attempted to demonstrate that Catholic communities have a lower suicide rate than that of Protestants, something he attributed to social (as opposed to individual or psychological) causes. He developed the notion of objective suis generis "social facts" to delineate a unique empirical object for the science of sociology to study. Through such studies he posited that sociology would be able to determine whether any given society is "healthy" or "pathological", and seek social reform to negate organic breakdown or "social anomie". For Durkheim, sociology could be described as the "science of institutions, their genesis and their functioning". In the early 20th century innovation in survey methodology were developed that are still dominant. In 1928, the psychologist Louis Leon Thurstone developed a method to select and score multiple items with which to measure complex ideas, such as attitudes towards religion. In 1932, the psychologist Rensis Likert developed the Likert scale where participants rate their agreement with statement using five options from totally disagree to totally agree. Likert like scales remain the most frequently used items in survey. In the mid-20th century there was a general—but not universal—trend for American sociology to be more scientific in nature, due to the prominence at that time of action theory and other system-theoretical approaches. Robert K. Merton released his Social Theory and Social Structure (1949). By the turn of the 1960s, sociological research was increasingly employed as a tool by governments and businesses worldwide. Sociologists developed new types of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Paul Lazarsfeld founded Columbia University's Bureau of Applied Social Research, where he exerted a tremendous influence over the techniques and the organization of social research. His many contributions to sociological method have earned him the title of the "founder of modern empirical sociology". Lazarsfeld made great strides in statistical survey analysis, panel methods, latent structure analysis, and contextual analysis. Many of his ideas have been so influential as to now be considered self-evident. Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.According to Russian writer, chess grandmaster and political activist Garry Kasparov, "whataboutism" is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc. Whataboutism has been used by other politicians and countries as well. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often use "and what about you?" style by instancing of an event or situation in the Western world. The idea can be found in Russian language: while it utilizes phrase "Sam takoi" for direct tu quoque-like "you too"; it also has "Sam ne lutche" ("not better") phrase. The term whataboutism is a portmanteau of what and about, is synonymous with whataboutery, and means to twist criticism back on the initial critic.According to lexicographer Ben Zimmer, the term whataboutery appeared several years before whataboutism with a similar meaning. He cites a 1974 letter by Sean O'Conaill which was published in The Irish Times and which referred to "the Whatabouts ... who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the 'enemy'" and an opinion column entitled 'Enter the cultural British Army' by 'Backbencher' (Irish Journalists John Healy) in the same paper which picked up the theme using the term "whataboutery". It is likely that whataboutery derived from Healy's response to O'Conaill's letter. I would not suggest such a thing were it not for the Whatabouts. These are the people who answer every condemnation of the Provisional I.R.A. with an argument to prove the greater immorality of the “enemy”, and therefore the justice of the Provisionals’ cause: “What about Bloody Sunday, internment, torture, force-feeding, army intimidation?”. Every call to stop is answered in the same way: “What about the Treaty of Limerick; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921; Lenadoon?”. Neither is the Church immune: “The Catholic Church has never supported the national cause. What about Papal sanction for the Norman invasion; condemnation of the Fenians by Moriarty; Parnell?” Healy appears to coin the term whataboutery in his response to this letter: "As a correspondent noted in a recent letter to this paper, we are very big on Whatabout Morality, matching one historic injustice with another justified injustice. We have a bellyfull [sic] of Whataboutery in these killing days and the one clear fact to emerge is that people, Orange and Green, are dying as a result of it. It is producing the rounds of death for like men in a bar, one round calls for another, one Green bullet calls for a responding Orange bullet, one Green grave for a matching Orange grave."Zimmer says this gained wide currency in commentary about the conflict. Zimmer also notes that the variant whataboutism was used in the same context in a 1993 book by Tony Parker.The Merriam-Webster dictionary identifies an earlier recorded use of the term whataboutism in a piece by journalist Michael Bernard from The Age, which nevertheless dates from 1978 - four years after Healy's column. Bernard wrote: "the weaknesses of whataboutism—which dictates that no one must get away with an attack on the Kremlin's abuses without tossing a few bricks at South Africa, no one must indict the Cuban police State without castigating President Park, no one must mention Iraq, Libya or the PLO without having a bash at Israel". This is the first recorded version of the term being applied to the Soviet Union. Ben Zimmer credits British journalist Edward Lucas for popularizing the word whataboutism after using it in a blog post of 29 October 2007, reporting as part of a diary about Russia which was printed in 2 November issue of The Economist. "Whataboutism" was the title of an article in The Economist on 31 January 2008, where Lucas wrote: "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'". Ivan Tsvetkov, associate professor of International Relations in St Petersburg, dates the practice of whataboutism back to 1950 with the "lynching of blacks" argument, but he also credits Lucas for the recent popularity of the term. In 1986, when reporting on the Chernobyl disaster, Serge Schmemann of The New York Times reported that The terse Soviet announcement of the Chernobyl accident was followed by a Tass dispatch noting that there had been many mishaps in the United States, ranging from Three Mile Island outside Harrisburg, Pa., to the Ginna plant near Rochester. Tass said an American antinuclear group registered 2,300 accidents, breakdowns and other faults in 1979. The practice of focusing on disasters elsewhere when one occurs in the Soviet Union is so common that after watching a report on Soviet television about a catastrophe abroad, Russians often call Western friends to find out whether something has happened in the Soviet Union. Journalist Luke Harding described Russian whataboutism as "practically a national ideology". Journalist Julia Ioffe wrote that "Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union" was aware of the technique, citing the Soviet rejoinder to criticism, And you are lynching Negroes, as a "classic" example of the tactic. Writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition", while The New Yorker described the technique as "a strategy of false moral equivalences". Ioffe called whataboutism a "sacred Russian tactic", and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black.According to The Economist, "Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed 'whataboutism'. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a 'What about...' (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth)." The technique functions as a diversionary tactic to distract the opponent from their original criticism. Thus, the technique is used to avoid directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument. The tactic is an attempt at moral relativism, and a form of false moral equivalence.The Economist recommended two methods of properly countering whataboutism: to "use points made by Russian leaders themselves" so that they cannot be applied to the West, and for Western nations to engage in more self-criticism of their own media and government. Euromaidan Press discussed the strategy in a feature on whataboutism, the second in a three-part educational series on Russian propaganda. The series described whataboutism as an intentional distraction away from serious criticism of Russia. The piece advised subjects of whataboutism to resist emotional manipulation and the temptation to respond.Due to the tactic's use by Soviet officials, Western writers frequently use the term has when discussing the Soviet era. The technique became increasingly prevalent in Soviet public relations, until it became a habitual practice by the government. Soviet media employing whataboutism, hoping to tarnish the reputation of the US, did so at the expense of journalistic neutrality. According to the Ottawa Citizen, Soviet officials made increased use of the tactic during the latter portion of the 1940s, aiming to distract attention from criticism of the Soviet Union.One of the earliest uses of the technique by the Soviets was in 1947, after William Averell Harriman criticized "Soviet imperialism" in a speech. Ilya Ehrenburg's response in Pravda criticized the United States' laws and policies on race and minorities, writing that the Soviet Union deemed them "insulting to human dignity" but did not use them as a pretext for war. Whataboutism saw greater usage in Soviet public relations during the Cold War.Throughout the Cold War, the tactic was primarily utilized by media figures speaking on behalf of the Soviet Union. At the end of the Cold War, alongside US civil rights reforms, the tactic began dying out. Post-Soviet Russia The tactic was used in post-Soviet Russia in relation to human rights violations committed by, and other criticisms of, the Russian government. Whataboutism became a favorite tactic of the Kremlin. Russian public relations strategies combined whataboutism with other Soviet tactics, including disinformation and active measures. Whataboutism is used as Russian propaganda with the goal of obfuscating criticism of the Russian state, and to degrade the level of discourse from rational criticism of Russia to petty bickering.Although the use of whataboutism was not restricted to any particular race or belief system, according to The Economist, Russians often overused the tactic. The Russian government's use of whataboutism grew under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. Putin replied to George W. Bush’s criticism of Russia: ‘I’ll be honest with you: we, of course, would not want to have a democracy like in Iraq.’ Jake Sullivan of Foreign Policy, wrote Putin "is an especially skillful practitioner" of the technique. Business Insider echoed this assessment, writing that "Putin's near-default response to criticism of how he runs Russia is whataboutism". Edward Lucas of The Economist observed the tactic in modern Russian politics, and cited it as evidence of the Russian leadership's return to a Soviet-era mentality.Writer Miriam Elder commented in The Guardian that Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, used the tactic; she added that most criticisms of human rights violations had gone unanswered. Peskov responded to Elder's article on the difficulty of dry-cleaning in Moscow by mentioning Russians' difficulty obtaining a visa to the United Kingdom. Peskov used the whataboutism tactic the same year in a letter written to the Financial Times. Increased use after the Russian annexation of Crimea The tactic received new attention during Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Ukraine. The Russian officials and media frequently used "what about" and then provided Kosovo independence or the 2014 Scottish independence referendum as examples to justify the 2014 Crimean status referendum, Donbass status referendums and the Donbass military conflict. Jill Dougherty noted in 2014 that the tactic is "a time-worn propaganda technique used by the Soviet government" which sees further use in Russian propaganda, including Russia Today. The assessment that Russia Today engages in whataboutism was echoed by the Financial Times and Bloomberg News.The Washington Post observed in 2016 that media outlets of Russia had become "famous" for their use of whataboutism. Use of the technique had a negative impact on Russia–United States relations during US President Barack Obama's second term, according to Maxine David. The Wall Street Journal noted that Putin himself used the tactic in a 2017 interview with NBC News journalist Megyn Kelly. Donald Trump US President Donald Trump has used whataboutism in response to criticism leveled at him, his policies, or his support of controversial world leaders. National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "President Trump has developed a consistent tactic when he's criticized: say that someone else is worse." NPR noted Trump chose to criticize the Affordable Care Act when he himself faced criticism over the proposed American Health Care Act of 2017, "Instead of giving a reasoned defense, he went for blunt offense, which is a hallmark of whataboutism." NPR noted similarities in use of the tactic by Putin and Trump, "it's no less striking that while Putin's Russia is causing the Trump administration so much trouble, Trump nevertheless often sounds an awful lot like Putin".When criticized or asked to defend his behavior, Trump has frequently changed the subject by criticizing Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration, and the Affordable Care Act. When asked about Russian human rights violations, Trump has shifted focus to the US itself, employing whataboutism tactics similar to those used by Russian President Vladimir Putin.After Fox News host Bill O'Reilly and MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called Putin a killer, Trump responded by saying that the US government was also guilty of killing people. Garry Kasparov commented to Columbia Journalism Review on Trump's use of whataboutism: "Moral relativism, 'whataboutism', has always been a favorite weapon of illiberal regimes. For a US president to employ it against his own country is tragic."During a news conference on infrastructure at Trump Tower after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, a reporter linked the alt-right to the fatal vehicle-ramming attack that was inflicted against counter-demonstrators, to which Trump responded by demanding the reporter to "define alt-right to me" and subsequently interrupting the reporter to ask, "what about the alt-left that came charging at [the alt-right]?" Various experts have criticized Trump's usage of the term "alt-left" by arguing that no members of the progressive left have used that term to describe themselves and furthermore that Trump fabricated the term to falsely equate the alt-right to the counter-demonstrators. The term "whataboutery" has been used by Loyalists and Republicans since the period of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The tactic was employed by Azerbaijan, which responded to criticism of its human rights record by holding parliamentary hearings on issues in the United States. Simultaneously, pro-Azerbaijan Internet trolls used whataboutism to draw attention away from criticism of the country. Similarly, the Turkish government engaged in whataboutism by publishing an official document listing criticisms of other governments that had criticized Turkey.According to The Washington Post, "In what amounts to an official document of whataboutism, the Turkish statement listed a roster of supposed transgressions by various governments now scolding Turkey for its dramatic purge of state institutions and civil society in the wake of a failed coup attempt in July."The tactic was also employed by Saudi Arabia and Israel. In 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "the [Israeli] occupation is nonsense, there are plenty of big countries that occupied and replaced populations and no one talks about them."Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif used the tactic in the Zurich Security Conference on February 17, 2019. When pressed by BBC's Lyse Doucet about eight environmentalists imprisoned in his country, he mentioned the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Doucet picked up the fallacy and said "let’s leave that aside."The government of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has been accused of using whataboutism, especially in regard to the 2015 Indian writers protest and the nomination of former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to parliament.Hesameddin Ashena, a top adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, tweeted about the George Floyd protests: "The brave American people have the right to protest against the ongoing terror inflicted on minorities, the poor, and the disenfranchised. You must bring an end to the racist and classist structures of governance in the U.S." China A synonymous Chinese-language metaphor is the "Stinky Bug Argument" (traditional Chinese: 臭蟲論; simplified Chinese: 臭虫论; pinyin: Chòuchónglùn), coined by Lu Xun, a leading figure in modern Chinese literature, in 1933 to describe his Chinese colleagues' common tendency to accuse Europeans of "having equally bad issues" whenever foreigners commented upon China's domestic problems. As a Chinese nationalist, Lu saw this mentality as one of the biggest obstructions to the modernization of China in the early 20th century, which Lu frequently mocked in his literary works. In response to tweets from Donald Trump's administration criticizing the Chinese government's mistreatment of ethnic minorities and the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, Chinese Foreign Ministry officials began using Twitter to point out racial inequalities and social unrest in the United States which led Politico to accuse China of engaging in whataboutism. The philosopher Merold Westphal said that only people who know themselves to be guilty of something "can find comfort in finding others to be just as bad or worse." Whataboutery, as practiced by both parties in The Troubles in Northern Ireland to highlight what the other side had done to them, was "one of the commonest forms of evasion of personal moral responsibility," according to Bishop (later Cardinal) Cahal Daly. After a political shooting at a baseball game in 2017, journalist Chuck Todd criticized the tenor of political debate, commenting, "What-about-ism is among the worst instincts of partisans on both sides." Whataboutism usually points the finger at a rival's offenses to discredit them, but, in a reversal of this usual direction, it can also be used to discredit oneself while one refuses to critique an ally. During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when The New York Times asked candidate Donald Trump about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's treatment of journalists, teachers, and dissidents, Trump replied with a criticism of U.S. history on civil liberties. Writing for The Diplomat, Catherine Putz pointed out: "The core problem is that this rhetorical device precludes discussion of issues (ex: civil rights) by one country (ex: the United States) if that state lacks a perfect record." Masha Gessen wrote for The New York Times that usage of the tactic by Trump was shocking to Americans, commenting, "No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core." Joe Austin was critical of the practice of whataboutism in Northern Ireland in a 1994 piece, The Obdurate and the Obstinate, writing: "And I'd no time at all for 'What aboutism' ... if you got into it you were defending the indefensible." In 2017, The New Yorker described the tactic as "a strategy of false moral equivalences", and Clarence Page called the technique "a form of logical jiu-jitsu". Writing for National Review, commentator Ben Shapiro criticized the practice, whether it was used by those espousing right-wing politics or left-wing politics; Shapiro concluded: "It's all dumb. And it's making us all dumber." Michael J. Koplow of Israel Policy Forum wrote that the usage of whataboutism had become a crisis; concluding that the tactic did not yield any benefits, Koplow charged that "whataboutism from either the right or the left only leads to a black hole of angry recriminations from which nothing will escape". In his book The New Cold War (2008), Edward Lucas characterized whataboutism as "the favourite weapon of Soviet propagandists". Juhan Kivirähk and colleagues called it a "polittechnological" strategy. Writing in The National Interest in 2013, Samuel Charap was critical of the tactic, commenting, "Russian policy makers, meanwhile, gain little from petulant bouts of 'whataboutism'". National security journalist Julia Ioffe commented in a 2014 article, "Anyone who has ever studied the Soviet Union knows about a phenomenon called 'whataboutism'." Ioffe cited the Soviet response to criticism, "And you are lynching negroes", as a "classic" form of whataboutism. She said that Russia Today was "an institution that is dedicated solely to the task of whataboutism", and concluded that whataboutism was a "sacred Russian tactic". Garry Kasparov discussed the Soviet tactic in his book Winter Is Coming, calling it a form of "Soviet propaganda" and a way for Russian bureaucrats to "respond to criticism of Soviet massacres, forced deportations, and gulags". Mark Adomanis commented for The Moscow Times in 2015 that "Whataboutism was employed by the Communist Party with such frequency and shamelessness that a sort of pseudo mythology grew up around it." Adomanis observed, "Any student of Soviet history will recognize parts of the whataboutist canon."Writing in 2016 for Bloomberg News, journalist Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a "Russian tradition", while The National called the tactic "an effective rhetorical weapon". In their book The European Union and Russia (2016), Forsberg and Haukkala characterized whataboutism as an "old Soviet practice", and they observed that the strategy "has been gaining in prominence in the Russian attempts at deflecting Western criticism". In her book, Security Threats and Public Perception, author Elizaveta Gaufman called the whataboutism technique "A Soviet/Russian spin on liberal anti-Americanism", comparing it to the Soviet rejoinder, "And you are lynching negroes". Foreign Policy supported this assessment. In 2016, Canadian columnist Terry Glavin asserted in the Ottawa Citizen that Noam Chomsky used the tactic in an October 2001 speech, delivered after the September 11 attacks, that was critical of US foreign policy. Daphne Skillen discussed the tactic in her book, Freedom of Speech in Russia, identifying it as a "Soviet propagandist's technique" and "a common Soviet-era defence". In a piece for CNN, Jill Dougherty compared the technique to the pot calling the kettle black. Dougherty wrote: "There's another attitude ... that many Russians seem to share, what used to be called in the Soviet Union 'whataboutism', in other words, 'who are you to call the kettle black?'"Russian journalist Alexey Kovalev told GlobalPost in 2017 that the tactic was "an old Soviet trick". Peter Conradi, author of Who Lost Russia?, called whataboutism "a form of moral relativism that responds to criticism with the simple response: 'But you do it too'". Conradi echoed Gaufman's comparison of the tactic to the Soviet response, "Over there they lynch Negroes". Writing for Forbes in 2017, journalist Melik Kaylan explained the term's increased pervasiveness in referring to Russian propaganda tactics: "Kremlinologists of recent years call this 'whataboutism' because the Kremlin's various mouthpieces deployed the technique so exhaustively against the U.S." Kaylan commented upon a "suspicious similarity between Kremlin propaganda and Trump propaganda". Foreign Policy wrote that Russian whataboutism was "part of the national psyche". EurasiaNet stated that "Moscow's geopolitical whataboutism skills are unmatched", while Paste correlated whataboutism's rise with the increasing societal consumption of fake news.Writing for The Washington Post, former United States Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul wrote critically of Trump's use of the tactic and compared him to Putin. McFaul commented, "That's exactly the kind of argument that Russian propagandists have used for years to justify some of Putin's most brutal policies." Los Angeles Times contributor Matt Welch classed the tactic among "six categories of Trump apologetics". Mother Jones called the tactic "a traditional Russian propaganda strategy", and observed, "The whataboutism strategy has made a comeback and evolved in President Vladimir Putin's Russia." Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair. In international relations, behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be quite good for a given geopolitical neighborhood, and deserves to be recognized as such.Christian Christensen, Professor of Journalism in Stockholm, argues that the accusation of whataboutism is itself a form of the tu quoque fallacy, as it dismisses criticisms of one's own behavior to focus instead on the actions of another, thus creating a double standard. Those who use whataboutism are not necessarily engaging in an empty or cynical deflection of responsibility: whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.Others have criticized the usage of accusations of whataboutism by American news outlets, arguing that accusations of whataboutism have been used to simply deflect criticisms of human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States or its allies. They argue that the usage of the term almost exclusively by American outlets is a double standard, and that moral accusations made by powerful countries are merely a pretext to punish their geopolitical rivals in the face of their own wrongdoing.The scholars Kristen Ghodsee and Scott Sehon posit that mentioning the possible existence of victims of capitalism in popular discourse is often dismissed as "whataboutism", which they describe as "a term implying that only atrocities perpetrated by communists merit attention." They also argue that such accusations of "whataboutism" are invalid as the same arguments used against communism can also be used against capitalism. A clinical research associate (CRA), also called a clinical monitor or trial monitor, is a health-care professional who performs many activities related to medical research, particularly clinical trials. Clinical research associates work in various settings, such as pharmaceutical companies, medical research institutes and government agencies. Depending on the jurisdiction, different education and certification requirements may be necessary to practice as a clinical research associate. The main tasks of the CRA are defined by good clinical practice guidelines for monitoring clinical trials, such as those elaborated by the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The main function of a clinical research associate is to monitor clinical trials. The CRA may work directly with the sponsor company of a clinical trial, as an independent freelancer or for a contract research organization (CRO). A clinical research associate ensures compliance with the clinical trial protocol, checks clinical site activities, makes on-site visits, reviews case report forms (CRFs), and communicates with clinical research coordinators. Clinical research associates also "assure the protection of the rights, safety and well being of human study subjects." Additionally, a CRA must "make certain that the scientific integrity of the data collected is protected and verified" and "assure that adverse events are correctly documented and reported."A CRA is usually required to possess an academic degree in Life Sciences and needs to have a good knowledge of good clinical practice and local regulations. The Canadian Association of Clinical Research Specialists (CACRS) is a federally registered professional association in Canada (Reg. #779602-1). The CACRS is a not-for-profit organization that promotes and advocates on behalf of its members in the field of Clinical Research and Clinical Trials. The CACRS has a comprehensive accreditation program including the Clinical Research Specialist (CRS) designation, which is a professional title conferred by passing a qualifying exam. Applicants holding a doctorate degree in medicine or science are required 2 years of prior experience whereas bachelor's degree holders are required 3 years of prior experience prior to taking the qualifying exam. In the European Union, the practice guidelines for CRAs are part of EudraLex. In India, a CRA requires knowledge about schedule Y amendments in drug and cosmetic act 1945. In the United States, the rules of good clinical practice are codified in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. CNNMoney listed Clinical Research Associate at #4 on their list of the "Best Jobs in America" in 2012, with a median salary of $90,700.The Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA) is a non-profit organization that is "dedicated to the continuing education and development of clinical research professionals". The Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA) has developed an International Certification Program in order to create an internationally accepted standard of knowledge, education, and experience by which CRPs will be recognized as Certified Clinical Research Professionals (CCRP®s) in the clinical research community. The standards upon which this certification program is based have been set forth by this organization to promote recognition and continuing excellence in the ethical conduct of clinical trials. SOCRA provides training, continuing education, and a certification program. A CRA who is certified through SOCRA's certification program receives the designation of a Certified Clinical Research Professional (CCRP®).The Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP) provides a certification for CRAs, specific to the job function performed. The ACRP offers the designation of Certified Clinical Research Associate (CCRA®). In order to become accredited as a CCRA®, the Clinical Research Associate must pass a CCRA® examination in addition to meeting other specific requirements. Before taking the exam, the potential applicant must show that they "work independently of the investigative staff conducting the research at the site or institution," in order to ensure that the person will not have the opportunity to alter any data. The applicant must also show that they have worked a required number of hours in accordance with study protocols and Good Clinical Practices, including making sure that adverse drug reactions are reported and all necessary documentation is completed. The number of hours that must be completed performing these activities is based on the level of education achieved; for example, someone who has only graduated from high school must perform 6,000 hours, but a registered nurse, person with a bachelor's, masters, or doctorate of medicine degree must only perform 3,000 hours. The ACRP's CRA certification program is accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA), the accrediting body of the Institute for Credentialing Excellence. ACRP CCRPS SOCRA Association of Clinical Research Professionals (United States and United Kingdom) Certified Clinical Research Professionals (United States) Canadian Association of Clinical Research Specialists Clinical Research Association of Canada (Canada) Clinical Research Society - Certified Clinical Research Associate ICH Guidelines Society of Clinical Research Associates (United States) Best Clinical SAS Training in Hyderabad (India)Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical, political, and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in climate change denial, astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, occult beliefs, and creation science, is part of science education and literacy.Pseudoscience can have dangerous effects. For example, pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism and promotion of homeopathic remedies as alternative disease treatments can result in people forgoing important medical treatments with demonstrable health benefits, leading to deaths and ill-health. Furthermore, people who refuse legitimate medical treatments to contagious diseases may put others at risk. Pseudoscientific theories about racial and ethnic classifications has led to racism and genocide. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative particularly by purveyors of it, because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Those practicing or advocating pseudoscience therefore frequently dispute the characterization. The word pseudoscience is derived from the Greek root pseudo meaning false and the English word science, from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge". Although the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g., in 1796 by James Pettit Andrews in reference to alchemy), the concept of pseudoscience as distinct from real or proper science seems to have become more widespread during the mid-19th century. Among the earliest uses of "pseudo-science" was in an 1844 article in the Northern Journal of Medicine, issue 387: That opposite kind of innovation which pronounces what has been recognized as a branch of science, to have been a pseudo-science, composed merely of so-called facts, connected together by misapprehensions under the disguise of principles. An earlier use of the term was in 1843 by the French physiologist François Magendie, that refers to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day". During the 20th century, the word was used pejoratively to describe explanations of phenomena which were claimed to be scientific, but which were not in fact supported by reliable experimental evidence. Dismissing the separate issue of intentional fraud—such as the Fox sisters' "rappings" in the 1850s (Abbott, 2012)—the pejorative label pseudoscience distinguishes the scientific 'us', at one extreme, from the pseudo-scientific 'them', at the other, and asserts that 'our' beliefs, practices, theories, etc., by contrast with that of 'the others', are scientific. There are four criteria: (a) the 'pseudoscientific' group asserts that its beliefs, practices, theories, etc., are 'scientific'; (b) the 'pseudoscientific' group claims that its allegedly established facts are justified true beliefs; (c) the 'pseudoscientific' group asserts that its 'established facts' have been justified by genuine, rigorous, scientific method; and (d) this assertion is false or deceptive: "it is not simply that subsequent evidence overturns established conclusions, but rather that the conclusions were never warranted in the first place" (Blum, 1978, p.12 [Yeates' emphasis]; also, see Moll, 1902, pp.44-47).From time to time, however, the usage of the word occurred in a more formal, technical manner in response to a perceived threat to individual and institutional security in a social and cultural setting. Pseudoscience is differentiated from science because – although it usually claims to be science – pseudoscience does not adhere to scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms. A number of basic principles are accepted by scientists as standards for determining whether a body of knowledge, method, or practice is scientific. Experimental results should be reproducible and verified by other researchers. These principles are intended to ensure experiments can be reproduced measurably given the same conditions, allowing further investigation to determine whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Standards require the scientific method to be applied throughout, and bias to be controlled for or eliminated through randomization, fair sampling procedures, blinding of studies, and other methods. All gathered data, including the experimental or environmental conditions, are expected to be documented for scrutiny and made available for peer review, allowing further experiments or studies to be conducted to confirm or falsify results. Statistical quantification of significance, confidence, and error are also important tools for the scientific method. During the mid-20th century, the philosopher Karl Popper emphasized the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from nonscience. Statements, hypotheses, or theories have falsifiability or refutability if there is the inherent possibility that they can be proven false. That is, if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates them. Popper used astrology and psychoanalysis as examples of pseudoscience and Einstein's theory of relativity as an example of science. He subdivided nonscience into philosophical, mathematical, mythological, religious and metaphysical formulations on one hand, and pseudoscientific formulations on the other.Another example which shows the distinct need for a claim to be falsifiable was stated in Carl Sagan's publication The Demon-Haunted World when he discusses an invisible dragon that he has in his garage. The point is made that there is no physical test to refute the claim of the presence of this dragon. Whatever test one thinks can be devised, there is a reason why it does not apply to the invisible dragon, so one can never prove that the initial claim is wrong. Sagan concludes; "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?". He states that "your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true", once again explaining that even if such a claim were true, it would be outside the realm of scientific inquiry. During 1942, Robert K. Merton identified a set of five "norms" which he characterized as what makes a real science. If any of the norms were violated, Merton considered the enterprise to be nonscience. These are not broadly accepted by the scientific community. His norms were: Originality: The tests and research done must present something new to the scientific community. Detachment: The scientists' reasons for practicing this science must be simply for the expansion of their knowledge. The scientists should not have personal reasons to expect certain results. Universality: No person should be able to more easily obtain the information of a test than another person. Social class, religion, ethnicity, or any other personal factors should not be factors in someone's ability to receive or perform a type of science. Skepticism: Scientific facts must not be based on faith. One should always question every case and argument and constantly check for errors or invalid claims. Public accessibility: Any scientific knowledge one obtains should be made available to everyone. The results of any research should be published and shared with the scientific community. During 1978, Paul Thagard proposed that pseudoscience is primarily distinguishable from science when it is less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and its proponents fail to acknowledge or address problems with the theory. In 1983, Mario Bunge suggested the categories of "belief fields" and "research fields" to help distinguish between pseudoscience and science, where the former is primarily personal and subjective and the latter involves a certain systematic method. The 2018 book about scientific skepticism by Steven Novella, et al. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe lists hostility to criticism as one of the major features of pseudoscience. Philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend argued that a distinction between science and nonscience is neither possible nor desirable. Among the issues which can make the distinction difficult is variable rates of evolution among the theories and methods of science in response to new data.Larry Laudan has suggested pseudoscience has no scientific meaning and is mostly used to describe our emotions: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us". Likewise, Richard McNally states, "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one's opponents in media sound-bites" and "When therapeutic entrepreneurs make claims on behalf of their interventions, we should not waste our time trying to determine whether their interventions qualify as pseudoscientific. Rather, we should ask them: How do you know that your intervention works? What is your evidence?" For philosophers Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz "pseudo-science may be defined as one where the uncertainty of its inputs must be suppressed, lest they render its outputs totally indeterminate". The definition, in the book Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (p. 54), alludes to the loss of craft skills in handling quantitative information, and to the bad practice of achieving precision in prediction (inference) only at the expenses of ignoring uncertainty in the input which was used to formulate the prediction. This use of the term is common among practitioners of post-normal science. Understood in this way, pseudoscience can be fought using good practices to assesses uncertainty in quantitative information, such as NUSAP and – in the case of mathematical modelling – sensitivity auditing. The history of pseudoscience is the study of pseudoscientific theories over time. A pseudoscience is a set of ideas that presents itself as science, while it does not meet the criteria to be properly called such.Distinguishing between proper science and pseudoscience is sometimes difficult. One proposal for demarcation between the two is the falsification criterion, attributed most notably to the philosopher Karl Popper. In the history of science and the history of pseudoscience it can be especially difficult to separate the two, because some sciences developed from pseudosciences. An example of this transformation is the science chemistry, which traces its origins to pseudoscientific or pre-scientific study of alchemy. The vast diversity in pseudosciences further complicates the history of science. Some modern pseudosciences, such as astrology and acupuncture, originated before the scientific era. Others developed as part of an ideology, such as Lysenkoism, or as a response to perceived threats to an ideology. Examples of this ideological process are creation science and intelligent design, which were developed in response to the scientific theory of evolution. A topic, practice, or body of knowledge might reasonably be termed pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms. Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements. Assertion of a claim with little or no explanatory power. Failure to make use of operational definitions (i.e., publicly accessible definitions of the variables, terms, or objects of interest so that persons other than the definer can measure or test them independently) (See also: Reproducibility). Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e., failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's razor). Use of obscurantist language, and use of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science. Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply. Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design. Lack of understanding of basic and established principles of physics and engineering. Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment (see also: Falsifiability). Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict. Scientific claims that do not confer any predictive power are considered at best "conjectures", or at worst "pseudoscience" (e.g., ignoratio elenchi). Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must therefore be true, and vice versa (see: Argument from ignorance). Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence, or personal experience: This evidence may be useful for the context of discovery (i.e., hypothesis generation), but should not be used in the context of justification (e.g., statistical hypothesis testing). Presentation of data that seems to support claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with those claims. This is an example of selection bias, a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected. It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. Promulgating to the status of facts excessive or untested claims that have been previously published elsewhere; an accumulation of such uncritical secondary reports, which do not otherwise contribute their own empirical investigation, is called the Woozle effect. Reversed burden of proof: science places the burden of proof on those making a claim, not on the critic. "Pseudoscientific" arguments may neglect this principle and demand that skeptics demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a claim (e.g., an assertion regarding the efficacy of a novel therapeutic technique) is false. It is essentially impossible to prove a universal negative, so this tactic incorrectly places the burden of proof on the skeptic rather than on the claimant. Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism: proponents of pseudoscientific claims, especially in organic medicine, alternative medicine, naturopathy and mental health, often resort to the "mantra of holism" to dismiss negative findings. Evasion of peer review before publicizing results (termed "science by press conference"): Some proponents of ideas that contradict accepted scientific theories avoid subjecting their ideas to peer review, sometimes on the grounds that peer review is biased towards established paradigms, and sometimes on the grounds that assertions cannot be evaluated adequately using standard scientific methods. By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues. Some agencies, institutions, and publications that fund scientific research require authors to share data so others can evaluate a paper independently. Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness. Appealing to the need for secrecy or proprietary knowledge when an independent review of data or methodology is requested. Substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all viewpoints is not encouraged. Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims. Terence Hines has identified astrology as a subject that has changed very little in the past two millennia. Lack of self-correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to reduce these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be regarded as pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence. The work Scientists Confront Velikovsky (1976) Cornell University, also delves into these features in some detail, as does the work of Thomas Kuhn, e.g., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) which also discusses some of the items on the list of characteristics of pseudoscience. Statistical significance of supporting experimental results does not improve over time and are usually close to the cutoff for statistical significance. Normally, experimental techniques improve or the experiments are repeated, and this gives ever stronger evidence. If statistical significance does not improve, this typically shows the experiments have just been repeated until a success occurs due to chance variations. Tight social groups and authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies. Assertion of a conspiracy on the part of the mainstream scientific community to suppress pseudoscientific information. Attacking the motives, character, morality, or competence of critics (see Ad hominem fallacy). Creating scientific-sounding terms to persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless: for example, a long-standing hoax refers to water by the rarely used formal name "dihydrogen monoxide" and describes it as the main constituent in most poisonous solutions to show how easily the general public can be misled. Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline. A large percentage of the United States population lacks scientific literacy, not adequately understanding scientific principles and method. In the Journal of College Science Teaching, Art Hobson writes, "Pseudoscientific beliefs are surprisingly widespread in our culture even among public school science teachers and newspaper editors, and are closely related to scientific illiteracy." However, a 10,000-student study in the same journal concluded there was no strong correlation between science knowledge and belief in pseudoscience.In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan discusses the government of China and the Chinese Communist Party's concern about Western pseudoscience developments and certain ancient Chinese practices in China. He sees pseudoscience occurring in the United States as part of a worldwide trend and suggests its causes, dangers, diagnosis and treatment may be universal.During 2006, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) issued an executive summary of a paper on science and engineering which briefly discussed the prevalence of pseudoscience in modern times. It said, "belief in pseudoscience is widespread" and, referencing a Gallup Poll, stated that belief in the 10 commonly believed examples of paranormal phenomena listed in the poll were "pseudoscientific beliefs". The items were "extrasensory perception (ESP), that houses can be haunted, ghosts, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, that people can communicate mentally with someone who has died, witches, reincarnation, and channelling". Such beliefs in pseudoscience represent a lack of knowledge of how science works. The scientific community may attempt to communicate information about science out of concern for the public's susceptibility to unproven claims. The National Science Foundation stated that pseudoscientific beliefs in the U.S. became more widespread during the 1990s, peaked about 2001, and then decreased slightly since with pseudoscientific beliefs remaining common. According to the NSF report, there is a lack of knowledge of pseudoscientific issues in society and pseudoscientific practices are commonly followed. Surveys indicate about a third of adult Americans consider astrology to be scientific. There have been many connections between writers and researchers of pseudoscience and their anti-semitism, racism and neo-Nazism backgrounds. They often use pseudoscience to reinforce their beliefs. One of the most predominant pseudoscientific writers is Frank Collin, who goes by Frank Joseph in his writings. Collin is well known for starting the National Socialist Party of America, or NSPA, which formed after Collin left the National Socialist White People's Party (NSWPP) after being outed as part Jewish by the party director Matt Koehl. The NSPA later became what is now known as the American Nazi Party. The NSPA became more well known after they planned to march in Skokie, Illinois, a suburb that has a predominantly Jewish population where 1 out of 6 residents were Holocaust survivors. Although this march did not take place, the court case National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie 1979 ultimately ruled that they were able to display a swastika as well as organize marches according to their first amendment rights. Collin was later arrested after child pornography and other evidence of sexual abuse against young boys was found in his possession. He was expelled from the American Nazi Party and served three years in prison. After he was released, he began a career as an author and editor in chief for Ancient American Magazine from 1993 to 2007. However, before publishing works, he changed his name from Frank Collin to Frank Joseph. Joseph became a successful writer. The majority of his works include the topics of Atlantis, extraterrestrial encounters, and Lemuria as well as other ancient civilizations. Joseph's writings are considered pseudoscience, or information that is claimed to be scientific yet is incompatible with the scientific method. These may be unfalsifiable, exaggerated, or highly biased claims. Joseph's books are riddled with exaggerated claims as well as bias towards white supremacy due to his Neo-Nazi background. As a white supremacist and self-described Nazi, Frank Joseph wrote about the hypothesis that European peoples migrated to North America before Columbus, and that all Native American civilizations were initiated by descendants of white people. Joseph and many other writers like him also claim that there is evidence that Ancient Civilizations were visited by extraterrestrials or have had help from more advanced people, directly going against Occam's razor. They suggest that the only way to explain how people of other cultures could be so far advanced is because these civilizations were helped by outside intelligence, thus assuming that ancient civilizations were not smart enough to create their own advanced technology. Joseph also speculates that many Atlanteans were most likely white and many of them were blonde with blue eyes, an Aryan stereotype. These pseudoscientific books were met with criticism because they do not give Ancient Civilizations credit for their advanced technology, and promote white supremacist ideas. Not only can these racist biases be found within new age ancient mystery writers such as Frank Joseph, many newspaper authors have written articles citing pseudoscientific "studies" to back up and reinforce antisemitic stereotypes. The Alt-Right using pseudoscience to base their ideologies on is not a new issue. The entire foundation of anti-semitism is based on pseudoscience, or scientific racism. Much of the information that supports these ideologies are extremely biased, with little evidence to support any of the claims. In an article from Newsweek by Sander Gilman, Gilman describes the pseudoscience community's anti-semitic views. "Jews as they appear in this world of pseudoscience are an invented group of ill, stupid or stupidly smart people who use science to their own nefarious ends. Other groups, too, are painted similarly in "race science", as it used to call itself: African-Americans, the Irish, the Chinese and, well, any and all groups that you want to prove inferior to yourself". Neo-Nazis and white supremacist often try to support their claims with studies that "prove" that their claims are more than just harmful stereotypes. In 2019 the New York Times published Bret Stephensons column "Jewish Genius". However, regardless of his intentions, Stephens's line of argument displays a particularly problematic use of science (or at least an appeal to scientific authority) as a tool to justify specious claims. The original version of the column (now removed from the New York Times website and replaced with an edited version) made reference to a study published in 2006 that claimed that the disproportionate number of famous Jewish "geniuses"—Nobel laureates, chess champions, and others—was exemplary of the paper's claim (quoted by Stephens) that "Ashkenazi Jews have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group for which there are reliable data." Stephens fully embraces this apparently empirical claim, writing: "The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, it's true." However, the scientific methodology and conclusions reached by the article Stephens cited has been called into question repeatedly since its publication. It has been found that at least one of that study's authors has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a white nationalist.The journal Nature has published a number of editorials in the last few years warning researchers about extremists looking to abuse their work, particularly population geneticists and those working with ancient DNA. The article in Nature, titled Racism in Science: The Taint That Lingers notes that early-twentieth-century eugenic pseudoscience has been used to influence US policy. The US Immigration Act of 1924 was consciously designed to discourage Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans from entering the United States, and barred Asian immigrants outright. This was the result of race-making ideologies and racist studies seeping into politics. Racism is a destructive bias in research. However, the search by some scientists for measurable biological differences between 'races', despite decades of studies yielding no supporting evidence continues. Research has repeatedly shown that race is not a scientifically valid concept. Across the world, humans share 99.9% of their DNA. The characteristics that have come to define our popular understanding of race include hair texture, skin color, and facial features. However, these traits are only some of the thousands that represent us as a species, and the visible ones are only able to tell us population histories and gene-environment interactions. In a 1981 report Singer and Benassi wrote that pseudoscientific beliefs