JIMMA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF HEALT

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT ON PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

FOR YEAR ONE PhD STUDENTS SUBMITTED TO

Dr. TEFERI TOLERA

PREPARED BY: HABTAMU ADMASU TUFA

A PhD STUDENT IN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND POLICY

24 NOV. 2024

JIMMA, ETHIOPIA
 Individual Assignment on chapter 1

Given Topics

1. Source of knowledge
2. Science and scientific knowledge
3. Ontology
4. Epistemology
5. Axiology
6. Paradigm
7. Concept, construct, and variables
8. Propositions and hypothesis
9. Reliability and Validity
Introduction
The philosophy of science is a rich field of inquiry that addresses fundamental questions about
the nature, methods, and implications of scientific knowledge.
It talks about the use of models, hypotheses, and experiments in scientific research, as well as
induction, deduction, and abduction. Philosophers also investigate how social and cultural
factors, including funding sources, peer review procedures, and society norms, affect scientific
practice.
Over all, the philosophy of science is essential for elucidating the character and bounds of
scientific knowledge, encouraging skepticism towards scientific assertions, and advancing
knowledgeable conversations regarding the social implications of science. We can gain a
greater understanding of the intricacies and unpredictability involved in the quest for
information about the natural world by looking at the fundamentals of scientific investigation.
The following topics are given from chapter one of philosophy of science.
1. Sources of Knowledge
Sources of knowledge refer to the means through which we acquire information and
understanding about the world. These can include:
 Empirical observation: refers to the practice of obtaining information and knowledge
through direct sensory experience and experimentation. This involves using our senses
such as sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell - to gather data about the natural world.
Essentially, empirical observation involves making observations or gathering evidence
based on what can be seen? Heard, felt, tasted, or smelled? It plays a crucial role in
scientific research and inquiry as it forms the foundation for generating hypotheses,
conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on evidence.
 Deductive reasoning: This type of reasoning involves starting with general premises
and using logic to arrive at specific conclusions. If the premises are true and the logic is
valid, then the conclusion must also be true. An example of deductive reasoning is:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
  Inductive reasoning: This type of reasoning involves making generalized conclusions
based on specific observations or evidence. While inductive reasoning does not
guarantee certainty, it aims to provide probable conclusions based on the available
evidence. An example of inductive reasoning is:
Observation 1: Every swan we have seen is white.
Conclusion: Therefore, all swans are white
 Authority: Probably one of the most popular ways to learn is through authority. This
approach entails embracing novel concepts just because a higher authority claims they
are accurate. Parents, the media, physicians, priests and other religious leaders, the
government, and academics are some examples of these authorities. In a perfect world,
we would be able to trust those in positions of power, but history has shown us that this
is not always the case, and many examples of crimes against humanity result from
people blindly obeying authority (such as the Nazi War Crimes and the Salem Witch
Trials).
On a more benign level, even if your parents may have advised you to make your bed first thing
in the morning, doing so creates the warm, moist atmosphere that mites prefer. The climate is
less conducive to mites when the sheets are kept open. These instances show that the issue with
relying on authority to get information is that they can be mistaken, they might be relying solely
on their gut feelings to reach their conclusions, and they might have personal motives to deceive
you. However, because we lack the time to critically examine and independently research every
item of information we receive from authority, a large portion of our knowledge is obtained
through this means. However, we may learn to assess the qualifications of those in positions of
authority, the procedures by which they arrived at their findings, and whether they have any
motives to mislead us.
 Intuition: It is the first way to know. We are depending on our instincts, feelings,
and/or gut feelings to lead us when we employ our intuition. Intuition entails trusting
what seems true rather than analyzing the facts or applying reason. The issue with
depending solely on intuition is that it can be incorrect since it is influenced by
motivational and cognitive biases rather than reasoned arguments or empirical data.
Although your friend's odd behavior can make you believe that they are lying to you,
it could simply be that they are holding in some gas or are distracted by something else
 that does not concern you. However, for some people, considering all of the options
and analyzing the alternatives can be paralyzing, and in certain cases, intuition-based
decisions turn out to be better than analytical ones
 Testimony: In modern epistemology, "testimony" is used as an umbrella to describe
any situation in which we come to a belief or learn something based on what other
people have told us. We depend on other people's testimonies whenever we believe what
a reliable friend says us, read the news to learn about current affairs, accept a stranger's
response when we ask for directions, get a medical diagnosis from our physician, etc.
Thus, testimony is similar to other epistemic sources such as perception, memory,
inference, and introspection in that it provides us with our own beliefs, but it differs
from them in that it relies on the mental processes of another individual (for example,
the speaker's choice to share their thoughts, the eyewitness's observations, etc.).

2. Science and Scientific Knowledge

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe. Scientific knowledge is characterized by:
 Empiricism: Empiricism is the process of learning via experience and observation.
Since you have only ever seen white swans, many of you may have assumed that all
swans are white. Because it seems flat, people have thought for centuries that the world
is flat. These examples and the many visual illusions that trick our senses illustrate the
problems with relying on empiricism alone to derive knowledge. We are limited in what
we can experience and observe and our senses can deceive us. Moreover, our prior
experiences can alter the way we perceive events. Nevertheless, empiricism is at the
heart of the scientific method. Science relies on observations. But not just any
observations, science relies on structured observations which is known as systematic
empiricism. The reliance is on observable and measurable phenomena.

 Falsifiability: The capability of a theory to be disproven by empirical evidence.

Scientific assertions ought to be verifiable. The assertion that women talk more than
men can be refuted because methodical observations may show that women do or do
 not talk more than men do. The fact that many believers in extrasensory perception
(ESP) and other psychic abilities assert that these abilities can vanish when they are
examined too closely is an example of an unfalsifiable assertion. Because of this, no
observation could be used as proof that extrasensory perception is not real. A self-
described psychic's claim of psychic abilities would be supported if a thorough
examination revealed that she was capable of making better-than-chance predictions
about the future. However, as her abilities are said to vanish when they are examined
too thoroughly, it would also be consistent with the claim if she was unable to make
better-than-chance predictions about the future.

 Replicability: The ability for experiments to be repeated and yield the same results.
A key tenet of scientific technique and study is reproducibility, or simply reproducibility. It
describes the capacity to reproduce study or experiment findings under identical conditions and
methodologies. Replicable studies allow other researchers to conduct the same experiment and
get comparable results, validating the initial findings.

Key Aspects of Replicability

 Methodological Transparency: For a study to be replicable, it should provide a

detailed description of the methods and procedures used, including experimental design,
data collection, and analysis techniques. This transparency allows other researchers to
follow the same steps.
 Data Availability: Access to the original data can enhance replicability. When
researchers share their datasets, it enables others to conduct their own analyses and
verify the results.
 Controlled Conditions: Replicability often requires that the original study's conditions
(e.g., environment, sample size, and participant characteristics) be closely matched in
replication attempts.
 Statistical Power: A study should be designed with sufficient statistical power to detect
effects, which helps ensure that findings are robust and not due to random chance
  Peer Review and Publication: Replicability is often assessed through peer-reviewed
publications, where other researchers can evaluate the methodology and results, and
attempt to replicate the findings.
Generally, science builds upon previous knowledge and theories, subject to revision based on
new evidence while scientific knowledge aims for objectivity and is provisional, meaning that
it can change with new discoveries.

3. Ontology
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that deals with the study of being, existence, and the nature
of reality. It explores fundamental questions about what entities exist and how they can be
categorized and related to one another. Here are some key aspects of ontology:

1. Nature of existence: Ontology examines what it means for something to

"exist." It looks at different types of existence (e.g., physical objects, abstract
concepts, properties, and relations).
2. Categories of being: Ontologists seek to classify different kinds of entities.
For example, they might differentiate between concrete objects (like a tree
or a car) and abstract objects (like numbers or concepts).
3. Relations between entities: Ontology also studies how different entities
relate to one another. This includes examining their properties,
classifications, and hierarchies.
4. Philosophical Questions: Ontology raises various philosophical questions
such as:
 What is the nature of objects and their properties?
 Do abstract objects exist, and if so, what kind?
 What are the limits of existence?
5. Types of Ontology: There are various schools of thought within ontology,
including:
 Realism: The belief that entities exist independently of our thoughts or perceptions.
 Idealism: The view that reality is mentally constructed or immaterial.
  Nominalism: The rejection of the existence of abstract objects, arguing that only
particular, concrete entities exist.
6. Applications in Other Fields: Ontology is not limited to philosophy. It is also
used in computer science, information science, artificial intelligence, and
linguistics. In these contexts, an "ontology" refers to a structured framework
for organizing information, typically represented as a set of concepts

4. Epistemology

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, scope, and limits of
knowledge. It addresses fundamental questions about what knowledge is, how it is acquired,
what justifies belief, and the distinction between belief and knowledge. Here are some key
issues in epistemology:
Nature of Knowledge
 Definition of Knowledge: Traditionally, knowledge has been defined as "justified true
belief." However, this definition has faced challenges, particularly from the Gettier
problem, which presents scenarios where one can have a justified true belief without
actually having knowledge.
 Types of Knowledge: Epistemologists distinguish between different types of
knowledge, such as propositional knowledge (knowing that something is the case),
procedural knowledge (knowing how to do something), and experiential knowledge
(knowledge gained through experience)
Justification
 Foundationalism vs. Coherentism: Foundationalism asserts that there are basic beliefs
that serve as the foundation for all other beliefs, while coherentism argues that beliefs
are justified by their coherence with other beliefs within a system. This raises questions
about the nature and structure of justification.
 Internalism vs. Externalism: Internalism holds that justification depends solely on
factors accessible to the individual's consciousness, while externalism posits that
justification can depend on external factors, such as the reliability of the belief-forming
process
Skepticism
 Global Skepticism: This position questions whether we can have any knowledge at all,
challenging the very possibility of knowledge by raising doubts about our ability to
know anything with certainty.
 Local Skepticism: This focuses on specific areas of knowledge, such as skepticism
about the external world, other minds, or past events.
Relativism vs. Absolutism
 Epistemic Relativism: This view holds that knowledge is relative to different cultures,
frameworks, or historical contexts, suggesting that there is no objective standpoint to
adjudicate knowledge claims.
 Epistemic Absolutism: In contrast, this position argues that knowledge claims can be
objectively evaluated and that there are universal standards for what constitutes
knowledge.
Gettier Problems
Edmund Gettier presented scenarios that challenge the traditional definition of knowledge as
justified true belief, showing that it’s possible to have a justified belief that is true by
coincidence rather than due to the justification. This has led to ongoing debates about how to
properly define knowledge.
Pragmatism and Knowledge
Pragmatism posits that the truth of beliefs is determined by their practical consequences and
usefulness. This challenges more views that are traditional by suggesting that the value of
knowledge lies in its application rather than in its correspondence to an objective reality
Contextualism
Contextualism suggests that the standards for knowledge claims can vary depending on the
context in which they are made. This raises questions about what it means to know something
and how context influences our understanding of knowledge.
Generally, epistemology encompasses a wide range of issues that explore the complexities of
knowledge, belief, and justification. These issues continue to provoke critical discussion and
debate among philosophers, influencing other fields such as science, ethics, and education.
Understanding these key issues, helps clarify what it means to know something and how we
can justify our beliefs in an increasingly complex world.
 5. Axiology

Axiology is the branch of philosophy dealing with values, including ethics and aesthetics. In
the context of the philosophy of science, axiology addresses:
Moral Philosophy:
 Ethical implications of scientific practices: How should scientists conduct themselves?
Considerations of ethics in research (e.g., human and animal rights).
 Nature of Goodness: Axiology examines what is considered good, right, or virtuous,
and explores the nature of moral values. Questions include: What is the good life? What
principles should guide our moral decisions?
Moral Theories: Axiology investigates different ethical theories, such as:
 Consequentialism: The belief that the morality of an action is determined by its
outcomes (e.g., utilitarianism).
 Deontology: The view that actions are morally right or wrong based on rules or duties,
regardless of the consequences (e.g., Kantian ethics).
 Virtue Ethics: Focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than on specific
actions, emphasizing virtues and moral character (e.g., Aristotelian ethics)
Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism:
Axiology also addresses the debate over whether moral values are universal and objective or
culturally and contextually dependent.

Aesthetics (Philosophy of Art and Beauty):

 Nature of Aesthetic Value: Axiology explores what constitutes beauty and artistic value,
asking questions like: What makes something beautiful? Is beauty subjective or
objective?
 Art and Judgment: Axiological inquiries into aesthetics involve understanding how we
evaluate art and beauty, the role of taste, and the criteria we use to judge artistic merit.
 The Relationship between Art and Emotion: Axiology examines how art evokes
emotions, how aesthetic experiences influence our values, and the role of art in society.
Axiology asks about:
  What are the fundamental values that guide human behavior?
 How do we prioritize conflicting values?
 Can values be objectively measured or are they inherently subjective?
 How do cultural and societal contexts influence our understanding of values?
Overall, axiology plays a critical role in understanding how values shape human experience,
decision-making, and the cultural landscape. It provides a framework for analyzing moral
dilemmas, aesthetic experiences, and the broader implications of value systems in individual
and societal contexts.

6. Paradigm

A paradigm is a framework of theories, methods, and standards that shapes the way a particular
scientific discipline or field of study views and interprets phenomena. The concept of a
paradigm is closely associated with the work of philosopher Thomas Kuhn, particularly in his
book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." Here are some key features of a paradigm: Key
features include:
Set of Beliefs and Values
A paradigm encompasses the shared beliefs, values, and assumptions that are accepted
by members of a scientific community. These beliefs guide research practices and
influence what is considered valid knowledge.
Theoretical Framework
Paradigms provide a theoretical foundation that guides the formulation of hypotheses,
research questions, and interpretations of data. They help structure the way researchers
understand and explain phenomena.
Methodological Approaches
Each paradigm typically includes preferred research methods and techniques. This can
include qualitative or quantitative approaches, experimental designs, observational
methods, and more, depending on the specific field and the paradigm in question.
Standard Practices
Paradigms establish norms and standards for conducting research, including ethical
guidelines, peer review processes, and criteria for evaluating evidence. These practices
help maintain the integrity and rigor of scientific inquiry within the paradigm.
Problem-Solving Framework
Paradigms define what types of problems are worth studying and how to approach them.
This includes identifying key questions, framing research problems, and determining
what constitutes a "solution" or valid explanation.
Community Consensus
A community of practitioners who share similar views and methodologies often upholds
a paradigm. This community consensus is critical for the paradigm's acceptance and
longevity.
Normal Science
Kuhn describes "normal science" as the regular work of scientists operating within a
prevailing paradigm. During this phase, researchers engage in puzzle-solving activities
that reinforce the existing framework, rather than questioning its foundational
assumptions.
Paradigm Shifts
Paradigms are not static; they can undergo significant changes over time, known as
"paradigm shifts." These shifts occur when anomalies or unresolvable problems
accumulate, leading to a crisis in the current paradigm. A new paradigm may emerge
that better explains the data and addresses the shortcomings of the old one.
Exemplar Works
Within a paradigm, there are often exemplary studies or works that serve as models for
future research. These "exemplars" are considered authoritative and guide the direction
of future inquiries.
Influence on Education and Training
Paradigms shape educational curricula and training programs in scientific disciplines. They
influence what is taught, how it is taught, and the skills that are emphasized for new researchers
entering the field.
In general, understanding the key features of a paradigm is essential for analyzing how scientific
knowledge is constructed, validated, and challenged. Paradigms play a crucial role in shaping
research agendas, guiding methodologies, and influencing the broader intellectual landscape of
a field. Recognizing the presence and impact of paradigms can help researchers navigate their
disciplines more effectively and critically engage with the assumptions underlying their work

7. Concept, Construct, and Variable

The terms concept, construct, and variable are fundamental in research and social sciences, and
they refer to distinct but interrelated elements that help in the formulation of theories and the
conduct of empirical research. Here is an explanation of each terms:
Concept
A concept is a general idea or abstraction that represents a class of objects, events, or
phenomena. Concepts are foundational to the development of theories and provide a way to
categorize and understand complex realities.

Characteristics:

 Abstract Nature: Concepts are often abstract and may not have a direct, observable
counterpart. For example, "justice," "happiness," and "intelligence" are concepts that
represent broad ideas or qualities.
 Foundation for Constructs: Concepts serve as the building blocks for constructs. They
provide the initial definitions that can be further refined and operationalized.
 Used in Theorizing: In theories, concepts help to explain relationships between different
phenomena.
Examples: Concepts of "freedom," "power," "social change," and "cultural identity."

Construct
A construct is a more specific and measurable version of a concept. It is an elaborated version
of a concept that is created for a particular research purpose, often operationalized to facilitate
measurement and empirical investigation.
Characteristics:

 Operationalization: Constructs are defined in a way that allows them to be measured or

tested. This involves specifying how the construct will be observed or quantified in
research.
 Context-Dependent: Constructs can vary depending on the theoretical framework and
research objectives. A single concept can give rise to multiple constructs depending on
how it is defined and measured.
 Foundation for Hypotheses: Constructs are often used to formulate hypotheses in
research, establishing clear relationships to be tested.
Examples: The concept of "intelligence" can be operationalized into the construct of "IQ score,"
which can be measured through standardized tests.
The concept of "social support" may be operationalized as "the number of friends or family
members a person can rely on during times of stress."
Variable
A variable is a specific attribute or characteristic that can take on different values or categories.
In research, variables are the measurable elements that are analyzed to understand relationships,
differences, or effects.
Characteristics:
 Quantifiable: Variables can be quantified or categorized, allowing researchers to collect
data and perform statistical analyses.
 Types of Variables: Variables can be classified into different types:
 Independent Variable: The variable that is manipulated or controlled in an experiment
to observe its effect on another variable.
 Dependent Variable: The outcome variable that is measured to see how it is affected by
changes in the independent variable.
 Control Variables: Other variables that are kept constant to avoid confounding effects
in an experiment.
Examples: In a study, examining the impact of study time (independent variable) on exam
scores (dependent variable), "study time" and "exam scores" are both variables.
Other variables, such as age or prior knowledge, may also be included as control variables to
ensure that any observed effects are due to study time alone.
Over all,
 Concept: A broad, abstract idea that serves as a foundation for understanding
phenomena (e.g., "intelligence").
 Construct: A specific, measurable version of a concept defined for research purposes
(e.g., "score on an intelligence test").
 Variable: A measurable attribute that can take on different values, used in research to
analyze relationships or effects (e.g., "test score" as a dependent variable).
These elements work together in the research process, with concepts providing foundational
ideas, constructs offering measurable definitions, and variables serving as the actual data points
analyzed in studies. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for effective research design and
analysis.

8. Propositions and hypothesis

In research and scientific inquiry, propositions and hypotheses are both used to formulate
ideas that can be tested or examined, but they differ in terms of their nature, scope, and
purpose. Here is a breakdown of each terms:

1. Propositions:

A proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a relationship between two or more

concepts, variables, or phenomena. Propositions are broader and more general than
hypotheses, and they can be used in various fields, including philosophy, sociology, and other
social sciences. Propositions often serve as foundational ideas that guide theory development.

 Nature: Propositions are usually theoretical statements that suggest how

different concepts or phenomena are related to each other.
 Purpose: They provide a basis for further investigation or theory-building
but are not always directly testable or empirical. They may be more
abstract and conceptual in nature.
  Scope: Propositions can be broad and general. They do not always specify
the conditions under which they are to be tested.
Example:
"Higher levels of education are associated with better health outcomes."
This is a general proposition suggesting a relationship between education and
health, but it does not specify the mechanisms, population, or conditions under
which the relationship holds. It serves as a starting point for developing hypotheses
that are more specific or conducting empirical research.
2. Hypothesis:

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction or educated guess about how variables are
related. In scientific research, hypotheses are often derived from theories or propositions and
are designed to be tested through experimentation or observation. Hypotheses are more
precise than propositions and are typically framed in such a way that they can be supported or
refuted based on empirical data.

 Nature: A hypothesis is a clear, testable statement that predicts a specific

relationship between two or more variables, often in a cause-and-effect
manner.
 Purpose: The goal of a hypothesis is to test whether a specific relationship
or effect exists. It provides a concrete basis for collecting and analyzing
data.
 Scope: Hypotheses are usually narrower and more specific than
propositions. They typically define the variables being studied and the
expected outcome.
 Testability: A hypothesis must be testable through empirical means, such
as experiments, observations, or data analysis.
Example:
"Increased levels of physical exercise will lead to a reduction in symptoms of
depression among adults aged 18-30."
 This is a specific hypothesis because it clearly defines the variables (physical
exercise, depression) and the target group (adults aged 18-30). It also provides a
directional prediction (exercise will reduce depression symptoms)

Key Differences:

Aspect Proposition Hypothesis

Broad, general
Nature Specific, testable prediction
statement
To provide
To test a prediction or
Purpose theoretical insight
causal relationship
or relationships
General and
Scope Narrow and concrete
abstract
Not necessarily
Testability testable (more Must be testable with data

theoretical)
"Teenagers who use social
"Social media use
media for more than 3
Example is linked to lower
hours daily will report
self-esteem."
lower self-esteem scores.

Relationship between Propositions and Hypotheses:

Propositions often serve as the foundation or starting point for formulating hypotheses.
Researchers may start with a broad proposition about the relationship between variables and
then develop specific hypotheses based on that proposition that can be tested with empirical
data.

For example, a researcher might start with a proposition like, "There is a relationship between
sleep and academic performance." From this, they could formulate a hypothesis such as,
"Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will score higher on their final exams than
students who sleep fewer than 5 hours."

In summary, a proposition is a general, theoretical statement that suggests a relationship or

pattern but is not necessarily testable or precise.

A hypothesis is a specific, testable prediction based on a theory or proposition that can be

investigated through research and empirical data.

In research, propositions often lead to hypotheses, which are then tested to draw conclusions
or build further theory.

9. Reliability and Validity

Reliability and validity are two fundamental concepts in research and measurement, often
used to assess the quality of data collection tools (such as surveys, tests, or experiments).
While they are related, they refer to different aspects of measurement:

1. Reliability:

Reliability refers to the consistency or stability of a measurement. A reliable instrument

produces the same results under consistent conditions. In other words, if you measure
something multiple times, the results should be similar each time, assuming nothing has
changed.

There are several types of reliability:

 Test-retest reliability: If you administer the same test to the same group of
people at two different points in time, how consistent are the results?
 Inter-rater reliability: If different people (raters) assess the same thing (e.g.,
scoring an essay), how consistent are their ratings?
 Internal consistency: How consistent are the items within a test that are
supposed to measure the same thing? For example, a questionnaire on anxiety
should have items that all measure aspects of anxiety.
  Parallel-forms reliability: If you create two versions of a test that measure the
same thing, do they yield similar results?
A test can be reliable without being valid, but if a test is not reliable, it cannot be valid.

2. Validity:

Validity refers to whether a test or measurement actually measures what it is intended to

measure. It speaks to the accuracy of the measurement. There are different types of validity:

 Content validity: Does the test cover the full range of the concept it is intended to
measure? For example, a math test should assess a range of math skills, not just one
type of problem.
 Construct validity: Does the test truly measure the theoretical construct it is supposed
to measure? For example, a test of intelligence should measure aspects of intelligence,
not just test-taking ability or memorization.
 Criterion-related validity: How well does the test correlate with other measures of the
same construct, or how well does it predict future behavior? This can be further
divided into:
 Concurrent validity: How well the test correlates with another established measure
taken at the same time.
 Predictive validity: How well the test predicts future outcomes (e.g., SAT scores
predicting college performance).
 Face validity: Does the test appear to measure what it is supposed to measure, even
though this is a subjective assessment?
A test can be valid only if it is reliable, because inconsistent measurements cannot
accurately capture the true construct. However, reliability does not guarantee validity.
For instance, a test that consistently measures something irrelevant may be reliable,
but not valid. For example, imagine a scale used to measure weight:

If the scale consistently gives the same weight every time you step on it (reliable),
but it is always off by 5 pounds (not valid), it is reliable but not valid.
If the scale fluctuates wildly every time you step on it (not reliable), even if it is technically
measuring weight, it would not be a reliable measure, regardless of whether it is accurate
(valid).

In summary, reliability is about consistency. A test or measure is reliable if it consistently

gives the same results under similar conditions.

Validity is about accuracy. A test or measure is valid if it actually measures what it is

intended to measure.

In research, both reliability and validity are important for drawing meaningful conclusions
from the data.
References

1. Alexander Rosenberg, Philosophy of Social Science, 5th ed., Routledge, 2015.

2. Andrew H. van de Ven, Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and
Social Research, Oxford University Press, 2007
3. Gladwell, M. E. (2007). Blink the power of thinking without thinking. How to
think straight about psychology (9th ed.). New York: Little, Brown & Company.

4. Thomas K. (1962/1970a). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press (1970, 2nd edition, with postscript).