Why can better scientific evidence be gathered when working together?
- Thread starter T345
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 12,751
Because on your own, you only have your own ideas whereas in a team, everyone contributes ideas and so you have a choice of several options.
This means you can choose the best way to collect data, how to intepret data, less workload than if you were on your own etc
This means you can choose the best way to collect data, how to intepret data, less workload than if you were on your own etc
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 405
Surely the answer is unscientific as it would be a matter of opinion of what is better... and opinions have no place in science.
In science there is 'no better evidence'. There are only facts and evidence is evidence, and there should be no prejudice against it, whether it came from one guy or a group of people.
Thats my take on the question anyway.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Provided the team members are appreciative of your opinion and are good bunch of people. Otherwise it becomes more of an egoistical match with lots of conflicts
Less chance of individual unintentional bias. One person may systematically always tend to a certain direction when obtaining results (be it in measurements and readings, or even something as simple as subconsciously who they interview on the street for questions). With multiple people you can have a reduced chance of this happening.
There's also always the point about people having more ideas. In a team there's obviously more people to put forward ideas and discussions, so there's more chance of a great idea coming forward, or that the flaws in a previous method may be able to be improved upon.
There's also always the point about people having more ideas. In a team there's obviously more people to put forward ideas and discussions, so there's more chance of a great idea coming forward, or that the flaws in a previous method may be able to be improved upon.
OcUK isn't the best place to ask about things like this due to such a variety in age groups leading to getting the wrong answer for whatever syllabus you're doing.
Your teacher's the best bet for this sort of stuff as you need to include particular keywords or some crap like that to get the marks IIRC.
PS - this question is pretty much common sense
I'll offer my opinion from a viewpoint of medical research as that is what I know and have undertaken. So here are my thoughts.
1) Individual bias potentially removed.
2) Ability to increase data set.
3) Ability to share workload facilitating practitioners continuance with normal duties therefore ensuring research is relevant and related to practice therefore reducing "dictates from the ivory towers".
4) Access to different population groups ie cultural, ethnic variations and therefore genetic potentials to activate drugs into active forms changing the actual efficacy of the drug eg codeine or say completely differing pharmacology in paediatric or elderly or hepatic/renal dysfunction. The working together doesn't have to be in the same centre.
5) Support and encouragement - research is not easy at time - often frustrating.
6) General group theory - a good group will always be more effective that its constituent parts.
7) Perspective on how to interpret the data.
There are downsides of course but you didn't ask for that!
1) Individual bias potentially removed.
2) Ability to increase data set.
3) Ability to share workload facilitating practitioners continuance with normal duties therefore ensuring research is relevant and related to practice therefore reducing "dictates from the ivory towers".
4) Access to different population groups ie cultural, ethnic variations and therefore genetic potentials to activate drugs into active forms changing the actual efficacy of the drug eg codeine or say completely differing pharmacology in paediatric or elderly or hepatic/renal dysfunction. The working together doesn't have to be in the same centre.
5) Support and encouragement - research is not easy at time - often frustrating.
6) General group theory - a good group will always be more effective that its constituent parts.
7) Perspective on how to interpret the data.
There are downsides of course but you didn't ask for that!
Don't listen to him GD knows better than those old duffers that get paid to teach you.
My answer is because we naturally compete to excel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
The kicker is that the thread title is exactly what it says on OPs homework sheet and he's just scored a night off.
its an assignment, the goal is to go find out why, you do with through research, aski89ng people is research.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 May 2011
- Posts
- 1,068
- Location
- London
Don't listen to him GD knows better than those old duffers that get paid to teach you.
My answer is because we naturally compete to excel.
And
Depends if he has covered it in class or it's a research based assignment.
Wikipedia says this about the definition
It doesn't necessarily mean research is expected.
Don't listen to him GD knows better than those old duffers that get paid to teach you.
My answer is because we naturally compete to excel.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
OcUK isn't the best place to ask about things like this due to such a variety in age groups leading to getting the wrong answer for whatever syllabus you're doing.
Your teacher's the best bet for this sort of stuff as you need to include particular keywords or some crap like that to get the marks IIRC.
PS - this question is pretty much common sense
Why do people have to keep ruining the t345 threads
kd