, IRM1501
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
(EXAM) 2026
DUE 12 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1:
Scientific research is generally distinguished from non-scientific research by its commitment to
systematic method, public verifiability, and the disciplined testing of claims against evidence.
Scientific research begins with a problem that can be investigated through observation,
measurement, or experiment, and it proceeds by formulating hypotheses or research questions
that are precise enough to be supported or refuted.¹ Its findings are expected to be reproducible:
other researchers should be able to follow the same procedures and obtain comparable results, or
at least understand why results differ.² It also relies on logic and inference, moving from evidence
to conclusions in a transparent way, while acknowledging uncertainty, probability, and the limits of
the data.³ In addition, scientific research is cumulative and self-correcting; it builds on prior work,
submits to peer review, and remains open to revision when new evidence emerges.⁴
Non-scientific research, by contrast, does not typically follow this disciplined, evidence-testing
framework. It may rely on personal experience, intuition, tradition, authority, or common sense,
and its conclusions are often accepted because they seem plausible or because they serve a
practical, political, or emotional purpose rather than because they have survived rigorous testing.⁵
Such research may still be systematic in a loose sense, for example in market surveys, historical
documentaries, or policy reports, but it does not aim at the same standards of falsifiability,
replicability, and impartial verification that characterize science.⁶ Non-scientific inquiry can be
valuable for exploring meaning, values, or local context, yet it is more vulnerable to bias, selective
evidence, and untestable assumptions.⁷
A useful way to express the difference is that scientific research asks not only “What do we think is
true?” but also “How would we know if we were wrong?”⁸ It therefore depends on methodological
scepticism, controlled observation, and public scrutiny.⁹ Non-scientific research may seek truth or
usefulness, but it does not ordinarily subject its claims to the same demanding process of empirical
confirmation and peer criticism.¹⁰ The boundary is not always absolute, since some forms of inquiry
lie between the two, but the central distinction remains the scientific commitment to systematic,
testable, and transparent investigation.¹¹
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER
(EXAM) 2026
DUE 12 OCTOBER 2026
QUESTION 1:
Scientific research is generally distinguished from non-scientific research by its commitment to
systematic method, public verifiability, and the disciplined testing of claims against evidence.
Scientific research begins with a problem that can be investigated through observation,
measurement, or experiment, and it proceeds by formulating hypotheses or research questions
that are precise enough to be supported or refuted.¹ Its findings are expected to be reproducible:
other researchers should be able to follow the same procedures and obtain comparable results, or
at least understand why results differ.² It also relies on logic and inference, moving from evidence
to conclusions in a transparent way, while acknowledging uncertainty, probability, and the limits of
the data.³ In addition, scientific research is cumulative and self-correcting; it builds on prior work,
submits to peer review, and remains open to revision when new evidence emerges.⁴
Non-scientific research, by contrast, does not typically follow this disciplined, evidence-testing
framework. It may rely on personal experience, intuition, tradition, authority, or common sense,
and its conclusions are often accepted because they seem plausible or because they serve a
practical, political, or emotional purpose rather than because they have survived rigorous testing.⁵
Such research may still be systematic in a loose sense, for example in market surveys, historical
documentaries, or policy reports, but it does not aim at the same standards of falsifiability,
replicability, and impartial verification that characterize science.⁶ Non-scientific inquiry can be
valuable for exploring meaning, values, or local context, yet it is more vulnerable to bias, selective
evidence, and untestable assumptions.⁷
A useful way to express the difference is that scientific research asks not only “What do we think is
true?” but also “How would we know if we were wrong?”⁸ It therefore depends on methodological
scepticism, controlled observation, and public scrutiny.⁹ Non-scientific research may seek truth or
usefulness, but it does not ordinarily subject its claims to the same demanding process of empirical
confirmation and peer criticism.¹⁰ The boundary is not always absolute, since some forms of inquiry
lie between the two, but the central distinction remains the scientific commitment to systematic,
testable, and transparent investigation.¹¹
