research topic must be ambiguous true or false

• Double-Barreled Questions: Examples & How To Avoid Them In Research

Introduction

It’s popular knowledge that survey creators want to create a perfect experience for their respondents, as this is the sure way to derive accurate results and gain useful insights . Poorly crafted or ambiguous questions are among the most common causes of inaccurate research results. 

This is because they need further clarification for the survey respondents to understand what the questions are asking; the result is answers that must reflect their true thoughts. This post will show you double-barrel questions and how to identify and avoid them in your research studies.

For survey participants, it is also helpful to recognize them so that you can easily avoid questions that would be unable to reflect your truest feelings no matter how you express yourself.

What is a Double-Barreled Question?

When a question refers to more than one topic, the result is a double-barrel question . A double-barreled question is sometimes referred to as a double-direct question.

 It is a question that makes inquiries about two related or unrelated issues with room for only one answer. In most cases, the answer provided does not depict which question is being referred to in the response.

 These questions are often found in research surveys and can make accuracy in survey research difficult to achieve.  In simple terms, double-barreled questions are two questions presented as one with only a single answer as a response option.

This approach leaves room for inaccurate interpretation of the survey results. For instance, asking survey participants how often and how much time they spend in the market is a double-barrel question. 

This is so because some respondents might visit the market frequently without spending a lot of much. While some may not be frequent visitors to the market, they spend a lot of time when they do. 

The problem is that they can only answer one of the questions at a time.

Effects & Implications of Double-Barreled Questions

A well-planned survey focuses on 3 major things; Getting respondents’ participation, motivating them to fill in the surveys, and using their responses to retrieve viable feedback that can guide business decisions.

However, with double-barreled questions, the respondents end up confused, and participation and completion of double-barreled survey questions are low. The cause of their confusion is that they have been asked two questions and are wondering which one should be answered.

In the same vein, the indecision on the part of the participants also leads to further confusion on the part of the survey analysts as they need clarification as to which of the questions the respondents answered in their forms, making it more difficult to analyze the answers.

The result of double barrel questions is always mixed-up answers that do not reflect the true state of things. 

The inaccuracy and unreliability of the results would cause poorly informed business decisions. This implies that the effort and resources invested in the survey would be a complete waste of time, as the purpose of the survey had been defeated due to the double barrel questions adopted.

Examples of Double-Barreled Questions

• How well do you get along with your parents and siblings?

This question inquires about two things. The people referred to are people that you interact with often. Their relationship is different based on their classification. You might be closer to your siblings than your parents or vice versa.

The best way to gauge the relationship between your parents  and your siblings would be to separate the questions like this;

• How well do you get along with your parents?
• How well do you get along with your siblings?
• How pleased are you with your remuneration and work culture?

Some people could be pleased with compensation but hate the work culture. This implies that they stay put only because they have bills to pay. The work culture may be stifling and toxic, while the salary is fantastic. So for more accurate feedback, separating the questions is the way to go.

• How pleased are you with your remuneration?
• How pleased are you with the work culture?
• How satisfied are you with the Formplus Surveys form questions templates and customer support?

With questions like the above, you can not get the true picture of what customers think about your service. On the one hand, the form templates are flexible and can be tweaked to suit any survey using the intuitive code-free form builder. On the other hand, the customer might not have needed customer support due to the ease of using the software application.

In this case, dividing the questions into two like this is ideal.

• How satisfied are you with Formplus survey forms templates?
• How satisfied are you with Formplus customer support?
• Which is better creation of more jobs or an increase in welfare packages for the unemployed?

These questions are difficult to answer, and it would be difficult to get the true stand on public opinions when questions are framed like this. How would the respondents answer the questions accurately if the preference is for more jobs or welfare packages?

The way out is two questions addressing the different concerns.

• Should the government create more jobs?
• Should the government increase welfare packages for the unemployed?
• How often do you buy Apples and Mangoes?

As you can see, it is difficult to tell which of the fruits a customer prefers to buy, as the question is lumping two different things together. A shopper might buy either of both fruits at different intervals. 

Some more frequently than others due to personal preferences. So asking a question like this would be better.

• How often do you buy mangoes?
• How often do you buy apples?
• Is this application easy to use and useful?

The question refers to two aspects. Easy to use and users are both positive features. They are not interchangeable. Some respondents may find the software useful but need help using it.

It would be better to ask separately:

• Is the software easy to use interesting?
• Is the software useful tool useful?
• How often do you take your children to the pediatrician, and how much time is spent on each visit?

The frequency of your visit to the pediatrician varies from how much time is spent with each visit. So instead,d it should be;

• How often do you take your kids to see the pediatrician?
• How much time is spent per visit?

How to Avoid Writing Double-barreled Questions

• Review your questions carefully. 

Stating the obvious, however, a careful review of your questions with your team would help you identify any questions inquiring about more than one thing; if a question falls into the double barrel category, edit it and break it down into two questions.

Asking a neutral person not involved in framing the survey questions would help you pinpoint double-barrel questions faster.

• Test run your survey.

Similar to how car manufacturers test cars and review cars before the final release. Before going live with the final survey, it is important to conduct beta testing.

This way, from the response, you can fix any issues relating to double barrel questions before the final release.

Other Common Survey Question Errors To Avoid

Leading questions.

Leading questions, as the name implies, employ the tool of biased terms to propel survey respondents to choose a particularly preferred answer option. It might seem like an innocent mistake; however, it can meddle with the survey’s accuracy. Most times leading questions are usually deliberate and aim to manipulate survey responses. There should be avoided at all costs, as this would affect the integrity of your survey, especially when reviewed by an external body, and would affect your brand image negatively.

Leading question example: Did you enjoy our new fantastic offer?

Read More – Leading Questions: Definition, Types, and Examples

Confusing questions

Confusing questions are a result of using a mix of words inappropriately. It usually has to do with grammar, and online editing tools can be a great way to tackle them.

The result of confusing questions is that respondents misinterpret your questions, which leads to wrong answers. Confusing your survey respondents can leave them guessing when completing your survey and leave you with unusable results.

For example : “Was our product used, and did it help to resolve your problem?”

Negative Questions

Negative questions, where positive responses indicate a negative answer and negative responses mean a positive answer. It cannot be easy to navigate for respondents and should be avoided, as the response can affect the quality of your survey.

Absolute Questions

Absolute questions aim to compel a certain kind of response with a note of finality from respondents. Absolute questions coerce participants to select either a yes or no answer, while the questions are always characterized by terms like always, never, all i.e.

For example: Do you always work for at least 40hours weekly? (Yes/No)

The “always” in this question and the yes/no answer choices makes the survey experience very uncomfortable for participants. It is best to avoid absolute questions when creating surveys. 

Ambiguous Questions

Ambiguous questions are usually difficult to answer, as their meaning is subject to various interpretations because there are too broad and not specific. This subjective interpretation leads to unreliable feedback, as each respondent would take an educated guess on what the question might mean.

The ambiguity here is the movie and the time it was aired. This kind of question would evoke a follow-up question by a respondent before an answer can be proffered.)

Assumptive Questions

Researchers or survey creators usually assume they have a knowledgeable audience in assumptive questions. Hence the question asked might be difficult ro the participants to respond to, as they need further clarity before answering.

It’s best always to seek clarity and specificity in your survey questions. as ambiguous questions usually breed unreliable answers.

For example: Which exercises help you get rid of diastasis recti? (It assumes that the respondent suffers from diastasis recti, a condition characterized by separation of the stomach muscles usually experienced by women after pregnancy.)

Here the assumption is that the respondent is female has had a baby, and suffers from diastasis recti. Meanwhile, the participants might be males or females who have never had a baby or do not suffer from diastasis recti even after they have had children.

The quality of survey research can be compromised when the questions seem unclear about what is being asked. Double-barreled questions should be avoided as they usually connote more than one meaning. Survey questions must be smart, specific, and easy to comprehend without significant effort. If you need help crafting survey questions, you can check out any free customizable survey form templates from Formplus .

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

• brand survey question
• formplus templates
• survey forms
• survey questionnaire
• Angela Kayode-Sanni

You may also like:

The Guide to Deciding on the Best Time to Send a Survey

Introduction Have you been wondering when to send out surveys? We’re here to help, so let’s start by giving you a little background...

How to Measure the Impact of a PR Crisis on Brand Perception

Introduction PR crises are scary. They can threaten your brand’s reputation, cause you to lose customers, and prevent you from...

What is a Panel Survey?

Introduction Panel surveys are a type of survey conducted over a long period measuring consumer behavior and perception of a product, an...

Transactional NPS vs Relationship NPS: Which Should You Prioritize?

Introduction Net promoter score, or NPS, is a key performance indicator that measures or tracks the propensity of a customer to...

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

Let’s start a new project together

Why you should avoid ambiguous questions in research, written by: paul stallard.

When carrying out any form of market research it is key to avoid ambiguous questions as you may receive vague answers. You only get out what you put in, and if you include poorly planned, ambiguous or misleading questions within your survey, then your results will come out exactly the same way.

Whilst it is important not to include leading questions that push an audience towards feeling a certain way, you should always make sure that your questions are straight to the point and that the respondents can easily decipher what a question means, and they can provide a confident answer. If this is not the case, you will not only receive questionable results, but you may also not get the best representation of the sector you are exploring.

Whether your research is commercial , political or cultural, our full-service market research team can provide you with an accurate picture of what the world thinks, and bring your story to life with more than just opinions . By better understanding buyers, trends, and data, it is possible to build stronger brands and drive sales. But you need to ask the right questions.

The ability to drill into profiled target groups and gather insights will give you strong reliable research to help position you as a thought leader.

...you should always make sure that your questions are straight to the point and that the respondents can easily decipher what a question means

More in: Work

More in: blog.

• USC Libraries
• Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

• The Research Problem/Question
• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Reading Research Effectively
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Applying Critical Thinking
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Research Process Video Series
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Insiderness
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Generative AI and Writing
• USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
• Bibliography

A research problem is a definite or clear expression [statement] about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or within existing practice that points to a need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation. A research problem does not state how to do something, offer a vague or broad proposition, or present a value question. In the social and behavioral sciences, studies are most often framed around examining a problem that needs to be understood and resolved in order to improve society and the human condition.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research . Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, editors. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994), pp. 105-117; Pardede, Parlindungan. “Identifying and Formulating the Research Problem." Research in ELT: Module 4 (October 2018): 1-13; Li, Yanmei, and Sumei Zhang. "Identifying the Research Problem." In Applied Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning . (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2022), pp. 13-21.

Importance of...

The purpose of a problem statement is to:

• Introduce the reader to the importance of the topic being studied . The reader is oriented to the significance of the study.
• Anchors the research questions, hypotheses, or assumptions to follow . It offers a concise statement about the purpose of your paper.
• Place the topic into a particular context that defines the parameters of what is to be investigated.
• Provide the framework for reporting the results and indicates what is probably necessary to conduct the study and explain how the findings will present this information.

In the social sciences, the research problem establishes the means by which you must answer the "So What?" question. This declarative question refers to a research problem surviving the relevancy test [the quality of a measurement procedure that provides repeatability and accuracy]. Note that answering the "So What?" question requires a commitment on your part to not only show that you have reviewed the literature, but that you have thoroughly considered the significance of the research problem and its implications applied to creating new knowledge and understanding or informing practice.

To survive the "So What" question, problem statements should possess the following attributes:

• Clarity and precision [a well-written statement does not make sweeping generalizations and irresponsible pronouncements; it also does include unspecific determinates like "very" or "giant"],
• Demonstrate a researchable topic or issue [i.e., feasibility of conducting the study is based upon access to information that can be effectively acquired, gathered, interpreted, synthesized, and understood],
• Identification of what would be studied, while avoiding the use of value-laden words and terms,
• Identification of an overarching question or small set of questions accompanied by key factors or variables,
• Identification of key concepts and terms,
• Articulation of the study's conceptual boundaries or parameters or limitations,
• Some generalizability in regards to applicability and bringing results into general use,
• Conveyance of the study's importance, benefits, and justification [i.e., regardless of the type of research, it is important to demonstrate that the research is not trivial],
• Does not have unnecessary jargon or overly complex sentence constructions; and,
• Conveyance of more than the mere gathering of descriptive data providing only a snapshot of the issue or phenomenon under investigation.

Bryman, Alan. “The Research Question in Social Research: What is its Role?” International Journal of Social Research Methodology 10 (2007): 5-20; Brown, Perry J., Allen Dyer, and Ross S. Whaley. "Recreation Research—So What?" Journal of Leisure Research 5 (1973): 16-24; Castellanos, Susie. Critical Writing and Thinking. The Writing Center. Dean of the College. Brown University; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); Thesis and Purpose Statements. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Selwyn, Neil. "‘So What?’…A Question that Every Journal Article Needs to Answer." Learning, Media, and Technology 39 (2014): 1-5; Shoket, Mohd. "Research Problem: Identification and Formulation." International Journal of Research 1 (May 2014): 512-518.

Structure and Writing Style

I.  Types and Content

There are four general conceptualizations of a research problem in the social sciences:

• Casuist Research Problem -- this type of problem relates to the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience by analyzing moral dilemmas through the application of general rules and the careful distinction of special cases.
• Difference Research Problem -- typically asks the question, “Is there a difference between two or more groups or treatments?” This type of problem statement is used when the researcher compares or contrasts two or more phenomena. This a common approach to defining a problem in the clinical social sciences or behavioral sciences.
• Descriptive Research Problem -- typically asks the question, "what is...?" with the underlying purpose to describe the significance of a situation, state, or existence of a specific phenomenon. This problem is often associated with revealing hidden or understudied issues.
• Relational Research Problem -- suggests a relationship of some sort between two or more variables to be investigated. The underlying purpose is to investigate specific qualities or characteristics that may be connected in some way.

A problem statement in the social sciences should contain :

• A lead-in that helps ensure the reader will maintain interest over the study,
• A declaration of originality [e.g., mentioning a knowledge void or a lack of clarity about a topic that will be revealed in the literature review of prior research],
• An indication of the central focus of the study [establishing the boundaries of analysis], and
• An explanation of the study's significance or the benefits to be derived from investigating the research problem.

NOTE:   A statement describing the research problem of your paper should not be viewed as a thesis statement that you may be familiar with from high school. Given the content listed above, a description of the research problem is usually a short paragraph in length.

II.  Sources of Problems for Investigation

The identification of a problem to study can be challenging, not because there's a lack of issues that could be investigated, but due to the challenge of formulating an academically relevant and researchable problem which is unique and does not simply duplicate the work of others. To facilitate how you might select a problem from which to build a research study, consider these sources of inspiration:

Deductions from Theory This relates to deductions made from social philosophy or generalizations embodied in life and in society that the researcher is familiar with. These deductions from human behavior are then placed within an empirical frame of reference through research. From a theory, the researcher can formulate a research problem or hypothesis stating the expected findings in certain empirical situations. The research asks the question: “What relationship between variables will be observed if theory aptly summarizes the state of affairs?” One can then design and carry out a systematic investigation to assess whether empirical data confirm or reject the hypothesis, and hence, the theory.

Interdisciplinary Perspectives Identifying a problem that forms the basis for a research study can come from academic movements and scholarship originating in disciplines outside of your primary area of study. This can be an intellectually stimulating exercise. A review of pertinent literature should include examining research from related disciplines that can reveal new avenues of exploration and analysis. An interdisciplinary approach to selecting a research problem offers an opportunity to construct a more comprehensive understanding of a very complex issue that any single discipline may be able to provide.

Interviewing Practitioners The identification of research problems about particular topics can arise from formal interviews or informal discussions with practitioners who provide insight into new directions for future research and how to make research findings more relevant to practice. Discussions with experts in the field, such as, teachers, social workers, health care providers, lawyers, business leaders, etc., offers the chance to identify practical, “real world” problems that may be understudied or ignored within academic circles. This approach also provides some practical knowledge which may help in the process of designing and conducting your study.

Personal Experience Don't undervalue your everyday experiences or encounters as worthwhile problems for investigation. Think critically about your own experiences and/or frustrations with an issue facing society or related to your community, your neighborhood, your family, or your personal life. This can be derived, for example, from deliberate observations of certain relationships for which there is no clear explanation or witnessing an event that appears harmful to a person or group or that is out of the ordinary.

Relevant Literature The selection of a research problem can be derived from a thorough review of pertinent research associated with your overall area of interest. This may reveal where gaps exist in understanding a topic or where an issue has been understudied. Research may be conducted to: 1) fill such gaps in knowledge; 2) evaluate if the methodologies employed in prior studies can be adapted to solve other problems; or, 3) determine if a similar study could be conducted in a different subject area or applied in a different context or to different study sample [i.e., different setting or different group of people]. Also, authors frequently conclude their studies by noting implications for further research; read the conclusion of pertinent studies because statements about further research can be a valuable source for identifying new problems to investigate. The fact that a researcher has identified a topic worthy of further exploration validates the fact it is worth pursuing.

III.  What Makes a Good Research Statement?

A good problem statement begins by introducing the broad area in which your research is centered, gradually leading the reader to the more specific issues you are investigating. The statement need not be lengthy, but a good research problem should incorporate the following features:

1.  Compelling Topic The problem chosen should be one that motivates you to address it but simple curiosity is not a good enough reason to pursue a research study because this does not indicate significance. The problem that you choose to explore must be important to you, but it must also be viewed as important by your readers and to a the larger academic and/or social community that could be impacted by the results of your study. 2.  Supports Multiple Perspectives The problem must be phrased in a way that avoids dichotomies and instead supports the generation and exploration of multiple perspectives. A general rule of thumb in the social sciences is that a good research problem is one that would generate a variety of viewpoints from a composite audience made up of reasonable people. 3.  Researchability This isn't a real word but it represents an important aspect of creating a good research statement. It seems a bit obvious, but you don't want to find yourself in the midst of investigating a complex research project and realize that you don't have enough prior research to draw from for your analysis. There's nothing inherently wrong with original research, but you must choose research problems that can be supported, in some way, by the resources available to you. If you are not sure if something is researchable, don't assume that it isn't if you don't find information right away--seek help from a librarian !

NOTE:   Do not confuse a research problem with a research topic. A topic is something to read and obtain information about, whereas a problem is something to be solved or framed as a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution, or explained as a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation. In short, a research topic is something to be understood; a research problem is something that needs to be investigated.

IV.  Asking Analytical Questions about the Research Problem

Research problems in the social and behavioral sciences are often analyzed around critical questions that must be investigated. These questions can be explicitly listed in the introduction [i.e., "This study addresses three research questions about women's psychological recovery from domestic abuse in multi-generational home settings..."], or, the questions are implied in the text as specific areas of study related to the research problem. Explicitly listing your research questions at the end of your introduction can help in designing a clear roadmap of what you plan to address in your study, whereas, implicitly integrating them into the text of the introduction allows you to create a more compelling narrative around the key issues under investigation. Either approach is appropriate.

The number of questions you attempt to address should be based on the complexity of the problem you are investigating and what areas of inquiry you find most critical to study. Practical considerations, such as, the length of the paper you are writing or the availability of resources to analyze the issue can also factor in how many questions to ask. In general, however, there should be no more than four research questions underpinning a single research problem.

Given this, well-developed analytical questions can focus on any of the following:

• Highlights a genuine dilemma, area of ambiguity, or point of confusion about a topic open to interpretation by your readers;
• Yields an answer that is unexpected and not obvious rather than inevitable and self-evident;
• Provokes meaningful thought or discussion;
• Raises the visibility of the key ideas or concepts that may be understudied or hidden;
• Suggests the need for complex analysis or argument rather than a basic description or summary; and,
• Offers a specific path of inquiry that avoids eliciting generalizations about the problem.

NOTE:   Questions of how and why concerning a research problem often require more analysis than questions about who, what, where, and when. You should still ask yourself these latter questions, however. Thinking introspectively about the who, what, where, and when of a research problem can help ensure that you have thoroughly considered all aspects of the problem under investigation and helps define the scope of the study in relation to the problem.

V.  Mistakes to Avoid

Beware of circular reasoning! Do not state the research problem as simply the absence of the thing you are suggesting. For example, if you propose the following, "The problem in this community is that there is no hospital," this only leads to a research problem where:

• The need is for a hospital
• The objective is to create a hospital
• The method is to plan for building a hospital, and
• The evaluation is to measure if there is a hospital or not.

This is an example of a research problem that fails the "So What?" test . In this example, the problem does not reveal the relevance of why you are investigating the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., perhaps there's a hospital in the community ten miles away]; it does not elucidate the significance of why one should study the fact there is no hospital in the community [e.g., that hospital in the community ten miles away has no emergency room]; the research problem does not offer an intellectual pathway towards adding new knowledge or clarifying prior knowledge [e.g., the county in which there is no hospital already conducted a study about the need for a hospital, but it was conducted ten years ago]; and, the problem does not offer meaningful outcomes that lead to recommendations that can be generalized for other situations or that could suggest areas for further research [e.g., the challenges of building a new hospital serves as a case study for other communities].

Alvesson, Mats and Jörgen Sandberg. “Generating Research Questions Through Problematization.” Academy of Management Review 36 (April 2011): 247-271 ; Choosing and Refining Topics. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; D'Souza, Victor S. "Use of Induction and Deduction in Research in Social Sciences: An Illustration." Journal of the Indian Law Institute 24 (1982): 655-661; Ellis, Timothy J. and Yair Levy Nova. "Framework of Problem-Based Research: A Guide for Novice Researchers on the Development of a Research-Worthy Problem." Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline 11 (2008); How to Write a Research Question. The Writing Center. George Mason University; Invention: Developing a Thesis Statement. The Reading/Writing Center. Hunter College; Problem Statements PowerPoint Presentation. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Procter, Margaret. Using Thesis Statements. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Shoket, Mohd. "Research Problem: Identification and Formulation." International Journal of Research 1 (May 2014): 512-518; Trochim, William M.K. Problem Formulation. Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006; Thesis and Purpose Statements. The Writer’s Handbook. Writing Center. University of Wisconsin, Madison; Thesis Statements. The Writing Center. University of North Carolina; Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Pardede, Parlindungan. “Identifying and Formulating the Research Problem." Research in ELT: Module 4 (October 2018): 1-13; Walk, Kerry. Asking an Analytical Question. [Class handout or worksheet]. Princeton University; White, Patrick. Developing Research Questions: A Guide for Social Scientists . New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2009; Li, Yanmei, and Sumei Zhang. "Identifying the Research Problem." In Applied Research Methods in Urban and Regional Planning . (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2022), pp. 13-21.

• << Previous: Background Information
• Next: Theoretical Framework >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2024 10:20 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Research Process Guide

• Step 1 - Identifying and Developing a Topic
• Step 2 - Narrowing Your Topic
• Step 3 - Developing Research Questions
• Step 4 - Conducting a Literature Review
• Step 5 - Choosing a Conceptual or Theoretical Framework
• Step 6 - Determining Research Methodology
• Step 6a - Determining Research Methodology - Quantitative Research Methods
• Step 6b - Determining Research Methodology - Qualitative Design
• Step 7 - Considering Ethical Issues in Research with Human Subjects - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
• Step 8 - Collecting Data
• Step 9 - Analyzing Data
• Step 10 - Interpreting Results
• Step 11 - Writing Up Results

Step 1: Identifying and Developing a Topic

Whatever your field or discipline, the best advice to give on identifying a research topic is to choose something that you find really interesting. You will be spending an enormous amount of time with your topic, you need to be invested. Over the course of your research design, proposal and actually conducting your study, you may feel like you are really tired of your topic, however,  your interest and investment in the topic will help you persist through dissertation defense. Identifying a research topic can be challenging. Most of the research that has been completed on the process of conducting research fails to examine the preliminary stages of the interactive and self-reflective process of identifying a research topic (Wintersberger & Saunders, 2020).  You may choose a topic at the beginning of the process, and through exploring the research that has already been done, one’s own interests that are narrowed or expanded in scope, the topic will change over time (Dwarkadas & Lin, 2019). Where do I begin? According to the research, there are generally two paths to exploring your research topic, creative path and the rational path (Saunders et al., 2019).  The rational path takes a linear path and deals with questions we need to ask ourselves like: what are some timely topics in my field in the media right now?; what strengths do I bring to the research?; what are the gaps in the research about the area of research interest? (Saunders et al., 2019; Wintersberger & Saunders, 2020).The creative path is less linear in that it may include keeping a notebook of ideas based on discussion in coursework or with your peers in the field. Whichever path you take, you will inevitably have to narrow your more generalized ideas down. A great way to do that is to continue reading the literature about and around your topic looking for gaps that could be explored. Also, try engaging in meaningful discussions with experts in your field to get their take on your research ideas (Saunders et al., 2019; Wintersberger & Saunders, 2020). It is important to remember that a research topic should be (Dwarkadas & Lin, 2019; Saunders et al., 2019; Wintersberger & Saunders, 2020):

• Interesting to you.
• Realistic in that it can be completed in an appropriate amount of time.
• Relevant to your program or field of study.
• Not widely researched.

Dwarkadas, S., & Lin, M. C. (2019, August 04). Finding a research topic. Computing Research Association for Women, Portland State University. https://cra.org/cra-wp/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2019/04/FindingResearchTopic/2019.pdf

Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.

Wintersberger, D., & Saunders, M. (2020). Formulating and clarifying the research topic: Insights and a guide for the production management research community. Production, 30 . https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20200059

• Last Updated: Jun 29, 2023 1:35 PM
• URL: https://libguides.kean.edu/ResearchProcessGuide

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Starting the research process
• Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples

Published on October 26, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 21, 2023.

A research question pinpoints exactly what you want to find out in your work. A good research question is essential to guide your research paper , dissertation , or thesis .

All research questions should be:

• Focused on a single problem or issue
• Researchable using primary and/or secondary sources
• Feasible to answer within the timeframe and practical constraints
• Specific enough to answer thoroughly
• Complex enough to develop the answer over the space of a paper or thesis
• Relevant to your field of study and/or society more broadly

Table of contents

How to write a research question, what makes a strong research question, using sub-questions to strengthen your main research question, research questions quiz, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about research questions.

You can follow these steps to develop a strong research question:

• Choose your topic
• Do some preliminary reading about the current state of the field
• Narrow your focus to a specific niche
• Identify the research problem that you will address

The way you frame your question depends on what your research aims to achieve. The table below shows some examples of how you might formulate questions for different purposes.

Using your research problem to develop your research question

Note that while most research questions can be answered with various types of research , the way you frame your question should help determine your choices.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Research questions anchor your whole project, so it’s important to spend some time refining them. The criteria below can help you evaluate the strength of your research question.

Focused and researchable

Feasible and specific

Complex and arguable

Relevant and original

Chances are that your main research question likely can’t be answered all at once. That’s why sub-questions are important: they allow you to answer your main question in a step-by-step manner.

Good sub-questions should be:

• Less complex than the main question
• Focused only on 1 type of research
• Presented in a logical order

Here are a few examples of descriptive and framing questions:

• Descriptive: According to current government arguments, how should a European bank tax be implemented?
• Descriptive: Which countries have a bank tax/levy on financial transactions?
• Framing: How should a bank tax/levy on financial transactions look at a European level?

Keep in mind that sub-questions are by no means mandatory. They should only be asked if you need the findings to answer your main question. If your main question is simple enough to stand on its own, it’s okay to skip the sub-question part. As a rule of thumb, the more complex your subject, the more sub-questions you’ll need.

Try to limit yourself to 4 or 5 sub-questions, maximum. If you feel you need more than this, it may be indication that your main research question is not sufficiently specific. In this case, it’s is better to revisit your problem statement and try to tighten your main question up.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Methodology

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

The way you present your research problem in your introduction varies depending on the nature of your research paper . A research paper that presents a sustained argument will usually encapsulate this argument in a thesis statement .

A research paper designed to present the results of empirical research tends to present a research question that it seeks to answer. It may also include a hypothesis —a prediction that will be confirmed or disproved by your research.

As you cannot possibly read every source related to your topic, it’s important to evaluate sources to assess their relevance. Use preliminary evaluation to determine whether a source is worth examining in more depth.

This involves:

• Reading abstracts , prefaces, introductions , and conclusions
• Looking at the table of contents to determine the scope of the work
• Consulting the index for key terms or the names of important scholars

A research hypothesis is your proposed answer to your research question. The research hypothesis usually includes an explanation (“ x affects y because …”).

A statistical hypothesis, on the other hand, is a mathematical statement about a population parameter. Statistical hypotheses always come in pairs: the null and alternative hypotheses . In a well-designed study , the statistical hypotheses correspond logically to the research hypothesis.

Formulating a main research question can be a difficult task. Overall, your question should contribute to solving the problem that you have defined in your problem statement .

However, it should also fulfill criteria in three main areas:

• Researchability
• Feasibility and specificity
• Relevance and originality

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 21). Writing Strong Research Questions | Criteria & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 10, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-process/research-questions/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, how to define a research problem | ideas & examples, how to write a problem statement | guide & examples, 10 research question examples to guide your research project, what is your plagiarism score.

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Research Problem? Characteristics, Types, and Examples

A research problem is a gap in existing knowledge, a contradiction in an established theory, or a real-world challenge that a researcher aims to address in their research. It is at the heart of any scientific inquiry, directing the trajectory of an investigation. The statement of a problem orients the reader to the importance of the topic, sets the problem into a particular context, and defines the relevant parameters, providing the framework for reporting the findings. Therein lies the importance of research problem s.  

The formulation of well-defined research questions is central to addressing a research problem . A research question is a statement made in a question form to provide focus, clarity, and structure to the research endeavor. This helps the researcher design methodologies, collect data, and analyze results in a systematic and coherent manner. A study may have one or more research questions depending on the nature of the study.   

Identifying and addressing a research problem is very important. By starting with a pertinent problem , a scholar can contribute to the accumulation of evidence-based insights, solutions, and scientific progress, thereby advancing the frontier of research. Moreover, the process of formulating research problems and posing pertinent research questions cultivates critical thinking and hones problem-solving skills.   

Table of Contents

What is a Research Problem ?  

Before you conceive of your project, you need to ask yourself “ What is a research problem ?” A research problem definition can be broadly put forward as the primary statement of a knowledge gap or a fundamental challenge in a field, which forms the foundation for research. Conversely, the findings from a research investigation provide solutions to the problem .  

A research problem guides the selection of approaches and methodologies, data collection, and interpretation of results to find answers or solutions. A well-defined problem determines the generation of valuable insights and contributions to the broader intellectual discourse.  

Characteristics of a Research Problem  

Knowing the characteristics of a research problem is instrumental in formulating a research inquiry; take a look at the five key characteristics below:  

Novel : An ideal research problem introduces a fresh perspective, offering something new to the existing body of knowledge. It should contribute original insights and address unresolved matters or essential knowledge.   

Significant : A problem should hold significance in terms of its potential impact on theory, practice, policy, or the understanding of a particular phenomenon. It should be relevant to the field of study, addressing a gap in knowledge, a practical concern, or a theoretical dilemma that holds significance.  

Feasible: A practical research problem allows for the formulation of hypotheses and the design of research methodologies. A feasible research problem is one that can realistically be investigated given the available resources, time, and expertise. It should not be too broad or too narrow to explore effectively, and should be measurable in terms of its variables and outcomes. It should be amenable to investigation through empirical research methods, such as data collection and analysis, to arrive at meaningful conclusions A practical research problem considers budgetary and time constraints, as well as limitations of the problem . These limitations may arise due to constraints in methodology, resources, or the complexity of the problem.  

Clear and specific : A well-defined research problem is clear and specific, leaving no room for ambiguity; it should be easily understandable and precisely articulated. Ensuring specificity in the problem ensures that it is focused, addresses a distinct aspect of the broader topic and is not vague.  

Rooted in evidence: A good research problem leans on trustworthy evidence and data, while dismissing unverifiable information. It must also consider ethical guidelines, ensuring the well-being and rights of any individuals or groups involved in the study.

Types of Research Problems  

Across fields and disciplines, there are different types of research problems . We can broadly categorize them into three types.  

• Theoretical research problems

Theoretical research problems deal with conceptual and intellectual inquiries that may not involve empirical data collection but instead seek to advance our understanding of complex concepts, theories, and phenomena within their respective disciplines. For example, in the social sciences, research problem s may be casuist (relating to the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience), difference (comparing or contrasting two or more phenomena), descriptive (aims to describe a situation or state), or relational (investigating characteristics that are related in some way).  

Here are some theoretical research problem examples :   

• Ethical frameworks that can provide coherent justifications for artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, especially in contexts involving autonomous decision-making and moral agency.  
• Determining how mathematical models can elucidate the gradual development of complex traits, such as intricate anatomical structures or elaborate behaviors, through successive generations.  
• Applied research problems

Applied or practical research problems focus on addressing real-world challenges and generating practical solutions to improve various aspects of society, technology, health, and the environment.  

Here are some applied research problem examples :   

• Studying the use of precision agriculture techniques to optimize crop yield and minimize resource waste.  
• Designing a more energy-efficient and sustainable transportation system for a city to reduce carbon emissions.  
• Action research problems

Action research problems aim to create positive change within specific contexts by involving stakeholders, implementing interventions, and evaluating outcomes in a collaborative manner.  

Here are some action research problem examples :   

• Partnering with healthcare professionals to identify barriers to patient adherence to medication regimens and devising interventions to address them.  
• Collaborating with a nonprofit organization to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs aimed at providing job training for underserved populations.  

These different types of research problems may give you some ideas when you plan on developing your own.  

How to Define a Research Problem  

You might now ask “ How to define a research problem ?” These are the general steps to follow:   

• Look for a broad problem area: Identify under-explored aspects or areas of concern, or a controversy in your topic of interest. Evaluate the significance of addressing the problem in terms of its potential contribution to the field, practical applications, or theoretical insights.
• Learn more about the problem: Read the literature, starting from historical aspects to the current status and latest updates. Rely on reputable evidence and data. Be sure to consult researchers who work in the relevant field, mentors, and peers. Do not ignore the gray literature on the subject.
• Identify the relevant variables and how they are related: Consider which variables are most important to the study and will help answer the research question. Once this is done, you will need to determine the relationships between these variables and how these relationships affect the research problem . 
• Think of practical aspects : Deliberate on ways that your study can be practical and feasible in terms of time and resources. Discuss practical aspects with researchers in the field and be open to revising the problem based on feedback. Refine the scope of the research problem to make it manageable and specific; consider the resources available, time constraints, and feasibility.
• Formulate the problem statement: Craft a concise problem statement that outlines the specific issue, its relevance, and why it needs further investigation.
• Stick to plans, but be flexible: When defining the problem , plan ahead but adhere to your budget and timeline. At the same time, consider all possibilities and ensure that the problem and question can be modified if needed.

Key Takeaways  

• A research problem concerns an area of interest, a situation necessitating improvement, an obstacle requiring eradication, or a challenge in theory or practical applications.   
• The importance of research problem is that it guides the research and helps advance human understanding and the development of practical solutions.  
• Research problem definition begins with identifying a broad problem area, followed by learning more about the problem, identifying the variables and how they are related, considering practical aspects, and finally developing the problem statement.  
• Different types of research problems include theoretical, applied, and action research problems , and these depend on the discipline and nature of the study.  
• An ideal problem is original, important, feasible, specific, and based on evidence.  

Frequently Asked Questions  

Why is it important to define a research problem?  

Identifying potential issues and gaps as research problems is important for choosing a relevant topic and for determining a well-defined course of one’s research. Pinpointing a problem and formulating research questions can help researchers build their critical thinking, curiosity, and problem-solving abilities.   

How do I identify a research problem?  

Identifying a research problem involves recognizing gaps in existing knowledge, exploring areas of uncertainty, and assessing the significance of addressing these gaps within a specific field of study. This process often involves thorough literature review, discussions with experts, and considering practical implications.  

Can a research problem change during the research process?  

Yes, a research problem can change during the research process. During the course of an investigation a researcher might discover new perspectives, complexities, or insights that prompt a reevaluation of the initial problem. The scope of the problem, unforeseen or unexpected issues, or other limitations might prompt some tweaks. You should be able to adjust the problem to ensure that the study remains relevant and aligned with the evolving understanding of the subject matter.

How does a research problem relate to research questions or hypotheses?  

A research problem sets the stage for the study. Next, research questions refine the direction of investigation by breaking down the broader research problem into manageable components. Research questions are formulated based on the problem , guiding the investigation’s scope and objectives. The hypothesis provides a testable statement to validate or refute within the research process. All three elements are interconnected and work together to guide the research.  

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

Selecting a Research Topic: Overview

• Refine your topic
• Background information & facts
• Writing help

Here are some resources to refer to when selecting a topic and preparing to write a paper:

• MIT Writing and Communication Center "Providing free professional advice about all types of writing and speaking to all members of the MIT community."
• Search Our Collections Find books about writing. Search by subject for: english language grammar; report writing handbooks; technical writing handbooks
• Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation Online version of the book that provides examples and tips on grammar, punctuation, capitalization, and other writing rules.
• Select a topic

Choosing an interesting research topic is your first challenge. Here are some tips:

• Choose a topic that you are interested in! The research process is more relevant if you care about your topic.
• If your topic is too broad, you will find too much information and not be able to focus.
• Background reading can help you choose and limit the scope of your topic. 
• Review the guidelines on topic selection outlined in your assignment.  Ask your professor or TA for suggestions.
• Refer to lecture notes and required texts to refresh your knowledge of the course and assignment.
• Talk about research ideas with a friend.  S/he may be able to help focus your topic by discussing issues that didn't occur to you at first.
• WHY did you choose the topic?  What interests you about it?  Do you have an opinion about the issues involved?
• WHO are the information providers on this topic?  Who might publish information about it?  Who is affected by the topic?  Do you know of organizations or institutions affiliated with the topic?
• WHAT are the major questions for this topic?  Is there a debate about the topic?  Are there a range of issues and viewpoints to consider?
• WHERE is your topic important: at the local, national or international level?  Are there specific places affected by the topic?
• WHEN is/was your topic important?  Is it a current event or an historical issue?  Do you want to compare your topic by time periods?

Table of contents

• Broaden your topic
• Information Navigator home
• Sources for facts - general
• Sources for facts - specific subjects

Start here for help

Ask Us Ask a question, make an appointment, give feedback, or visit us.

• Next: Refine your topic >>
• Last Updated: Jul 30, 2021 2:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.mit.edu/select-topic

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg
• v.24(1); Jan-Mar 2019

Formulation of Research Question – Stepwise Approach

Simmi k. ratan.

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, India

1 Department of Community Medicine, North Delhi Municipal Corporation Medical College, New Delhi, India

2 Department of Pediatric Surgery, Batra Hospital and Research Centre, New Delhi, India

Formulation of research question (RQ) is an essentiality before starting any research. It aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. It is, therefore, pertinent to formulate a good RQ. The present paper aims to discuss the process of formulation of RQ with stepwise approach. The characteristics of good RQ are expressed by acronym “FINERMAPS” expanded as feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, relevant, manageable, appropriate, potential value, publishability, and systematic. A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated. Based on this, there can be different types of RQ such as based on the existence of the phenomenon, description and classification, composition, relationship, comparative, and causality. To develop a RQ, one needs to begin by identifying the subject of interest and then do preliminary research on that subject. The researcher then defines what still needs to be known in that particular subject and assesses the implied questions. After narrowing the focus and scope of the research subject, researcher frames a RQ and then evaluates it. Thus, conception to formulation of RQ is very systematic process and has to be performed meticulously as research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

I NTRODUCTION

A good research question (RQ) forms backbone of a good research, which in turn is vital in unraveling mysteries of nature and giving insight into a problem.[ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] RQ identifies the problem to be studied and guides to the methodology. It leads to building up of an appropriate hypothesis (Hs). Hence, RQ aims to explore an existing uncertainty in an area of concern and points to a need for deliberate investigation. A good RQ helps support a focused arguable thesis and construction of a logical argument. Hence, formulation of a good RQ is undoubtedly one of the first critical steps in the research process, especially in the field of social and health research, where the systematic generation of knowledge that can be used to promote, restore, maintain, and/or protect health of individuals and populations.[ 1 , 3 , 4 ] Basically, the research can be classified as action, applied, basic, clinical, empirical, administrative, theoretical, or qualitative or quantitative research, depending on its purpose.[ 2 ]

Research plays an important role in developing clinical practices and instituting new health policies. Hence, there is a need for a logical scientific approach as research has an important goal of generating new claims.[ 1 ]

C HARACTERISTICS OF G OOD R ESEARCH Q UESTION

“The most successful research topics are narrowly focused and carefully defined but are important parts of a broad-ranging, complex problem.”

A good RQ is an asset as it:

• Details the problem statement
• Further describes and refines the issue under study
• Adds focus to the problem statement
• Guides data collection and analysis
• Sets context of research.

Hence, while writing RQ, it is important to see if it is relevant to the existing time frame and conditions. For example, the impact of “odd-even” vehicle formula in decreasing the level of air particulate pollution in various districts of Delhi.

A good research is represented by acronym FINERMAPS[ 5 ]

Interesting.

• Appropriate
• Potential value and publishability
• Systematic.

Feasibility means that it is within the ability of the investigator to carry out. It should be backed by an appropriate number of subjects and methodology as well as time and funds to reach the conclusions. One needs to be realistic about the scope and scale of the project. One has to have access to the people, gadgets, documents, statistics, etc. One should be able to relate the concepts of the RQ to the observations, phenomena, indicators, or variables that one can access. One should be clear that the collection of data and the proceedings of project can be completed within the limited time and resources available to the investigator. Sometimes, a RQ appears feasible, but when fieldwork or study gets started, it proves otherwise. In this situation, it is important to write up the problems honestly and to reflect on what has been learned. One should try to discuss with more experienced colleagues or the supervisor so as to develop a contingency plan to anticipate possible problems while working on a RQ and find possible solutions in such situations.

This is essential that one has a real grounded interest in one's RQ and one can explore this and back it up with academic and intellectual debate. This interest will motivate one to keep going with RQ.

The question should not simply copy questions investigated by other workers but should have scope to be investigated. It may aim at confirming or refuting the already established findings, establish new facts, or find new aspects of the established facts. It should show imagination of the researcher. Above all, the question has to be simple and clear. The complexity of a question can frequently hide unclear thoughts and lead to a confused research process. A very elaborate RQ, or a question which is not differentiated into different parts, may hide concepts that are contradictory or not relevant. This needs to be clear and thought-through. Having one key question with several subcomponents will guide your research.

This is the foremost requirement of any RQ and is mandatory to get clearance from appropriate authorities before stating research on the question. Further, the RQ should be such that it minimizes the risk of harm to the participants in the research, protect the privacy and maintain their confidentiality, and provide the participants right to withdraw from research. It should also guide in avoiding deceptive practices in research.

The question should of academic and intellectual interest to people in the field you have chosen to study. The question preferably should arise from issues raised in the current situation, literature, or in practice. It should establish a clear purpose for the research in relation to the chosen field. For example, filling a gap in knowledge, analyzing academic assumptions or professional practice, monitoring a development in practice, comparing different approaches, or testing theories within a specific population are some of the relevant RQs.

Manageable (M): It has the similar essence as of feasibility but mainly means that the following research can be managed by the researcher.

Appropriate (A): RQ should be appropriate logically and scientifically for the community and institution.

Potential value and publishability (P): The study can make significant health impact in clinical and community practices. Therefore, research should aim for significant economic impact to reduce unnecessary or excessive costs. Furthermore, the proposed study should exist within a clinical, consumer, or policy-making context that is amenable to evidence-based change. Above all, a good RQ must address a topic that has clear implications for resolving important dilemmas in health and health-care decisions made by one or more stakeholder groups.

Systematic (S): Research is structured with specified steps to be taken in a specified sequence in accordance with the well-defined set of rules though it does not rule out creative thinking.

Example of RQ: Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? This question fulfills the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant.

Types of research question

A RQ can address different formats depending on the aspect to be evaluated.[ 6 ] For example:

• Existence: This is designed to uphold the existence of a particular phenomenon or to rule out rival explanation, for example, can neonates perceive pain?
• Description and classification: This type of question encompasses statement of uniqueness, for example, what are characteristics and types of neuropathic bladders?
• Composition: It calls for breakdown of whole into components, for example, what are stages of reflux nephropathy?
• Relationship: Evaluate relation between variables, for example, association between tumor rupture and recurrence rates in Wilm's tumor
• Descriptive—comparative: Expected that researcher will ensure that all is same between groups except issue in question, for example, Are germ cell tumors occurring in gonads more aggressive than those occurring in extragonadal sites?
• Causality: Does deletion of p53 leads to worse outcome in patients with neuroblastoma?
• Causality—comparative: Such questions frequently aim to see effect of two rival treatments, for example, does adding surgical resection improves survival rate outcome in children with neuroblastoma than with chemotherapy alone?
• Causality–Comparative interactions: Does immunotherapy leads to better survival outcome in neuroblastoma Stage IV S than with chemotherapy in the setting of adverse genetic profile than without it? (Does X cause more changes in Y than those caused by Z under certain condition and not under other conditions).

How to develop a research question

• Begin by identifying a broader subject of interest that lends itself to investigate, for example, hormone levels among hypospadias
• Do preliminary research on the general topic to find out what research has already been done and what literature already exists.[ 7 ] Therefore, one should begin with “information gaps” (What do you already know about the problem? For example, studies with results on testosterone levels among hypospadias
• What do you still need to know? (e.g., levels of other reproductive hormones among hypospadias)
• What are the implied questions: The need to know about a problem will lead to few implied questions. Each general question should lead to more specific questions (e.g., how hormone levels differ among isolated hypospadias with respect to that in normal population)
• Narrow the scope and focus of research (e.g., assessment of reproductive hormone levels among isolated hypospadias and hypospadias those with associated anomalies)
• Is RQ clear? With so much research available on any given topic, RQs must be as clear as possible in order to be effective in helping the writer direct his or her research
• Is the RQ focused? RQs must be specific enough to be well covered in the space available
• Is the RQ complex? RQs should not be answerable with a simple “yes” or “no” or by easily found facts. They should, instead, require both research and analysis on the part of the writer
• Is the RQ one that is of interest to the researcher and potentially useful to others? Is it a new issue or problem that needs to be solved or is it attempting to shed light on previously researched topic
• Is the RQ researchable? Consider the available time frame and the required resources. Is the methodology to conduct the research feasible?
• Is the RQ measurable and will the process produce data that can be supported or contradicted?
• Is the RQ too broad or too narrow?
• Create Hs: After formulating RQ, think where research is likely to be progressing? What kind of argument is likely to be made/supported? What would it mean if the research disputed the planned argument? At this step, one can well be on the way to have a focus for the research and construction of a thesis. Hs consists of more specific predictions about the nature and direction of the relationship between two variables. It is a predictive statement about the outcome of the research, dictate the method, and design of the research[ 1 ]
• Understand implications of your research: This is important for application: whether one achieves to fill gap in knowledge and how the results of the research have practical implications, for example, to develop health policies or improve educational policies.[ 1 , 8 ]

Brainstorm/Concept map for formulating research question

• First, identify what types of studies have been done in the past?
• Is there a unique area that is yet to be investigated or is there a particular question that may be worth replicating?
• Begin to narrow the topic by asking open-ended “how” and “why” questions
• Evaluate the question
• Develop a Hypothesis (Hs)
• Write down the RQ.

Writing down the research question

• State the question in your own words
• Write down the RQ as completely as possible.

For example, Evaluation of reproductive hormonal profile in children presenting with isolated hypospadias)

• Divide your question into concepts. Narrow to two or three concepts (reproductive hormonal profile, isolated hypospadias, compare with normal/not isolated hypospadias–implied)
• Specify the population to be studied (children with isolated hypospadias)
• Refer to the exposure or intervention to be investigated, if any
• Reflect the outcome of interest (hormonal profile).

Another example of a research question

Would the topical skin application of oil as a skin barrier reduces hypothermia in preterm infants? Apart from fulfilling the criteria of a good RQ, that is, feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant, it also details about the intervention done (topical skin application of oil), rationale of intervention (as a skin barrier), population to be studied (preterm infants), and outcome (reduces hypothermia).

Other important points to be heeded to while framing research question

• Make reference to a population when a relationship is expected among a certain type of subjects
• RQs and Hs should be made as specific as possible
• Avoid words or terms that do not add to the meaning of RQs and Hs
• Stick to what will be studied, not implications
• Name the variables in the order in which they occur/will be measured
• Avoid the words significant/”prove”
• Avoid using two different terms to refer to the same variable.

Some of the other problems and their possible solutions have been discussed in Table 1 .

Potential problems and solutions while making research question

G OING B EYOND F ORMULATION OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION–THE P ATH A HEAD

Once RQ is formulated, a Hs can be developed. Hs means transformation of a RQ into an operational analog.[ 1 ] It means a statement as to what prediction one makes about the phenomenon to be examined.[ 4 ] More often, for case–control trial, null Hs is generated which is later accepted or refuted.

A strong Hs should have following characteristics:

• Give insight into a RQ
• Are testable and measurable by the proposed experiments
• Have logical basis
• Follows the most likely outcome, not the exceptional outcome.

E XAMPLES OF R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND H YPOTHESIS

Research question-1.

• Does reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients?

Hypothesis-1

• Reduced gap between the two segments of the esophagus in patients of esophageal atresia reduces the mortality and morbidity of such patients
• In pediatric patients with esophageal atresia, gap of <2 cm between two segments of the esophagus and proper mobilization of proximal pouch reduces the morbidity and mortality among such patients.

Research question-2

• Does application of mitomycin C improves the outcome in patient of corrosive esophageal strictures?

Hypothesis-2

In patients aged 2–9 years with corrosive esophageal strictures, 34 applications of mitomycin C in dosage of 0.4 mg/ml for 5 min over a period of 6 months improve the outcome in terms of symptomatic and radiological relief. Some other examples of good and bad RQs have been shown in Table 2 .

Examples of few bad (left-hand side column) and few good (right-hand side) research questions

R ESEARCH Q UESTION AND S TUDY D ESIGN

RQ determines study design, for example, the question aimed to find the incidence of a disease in population will lead to conducting a survey; to find risk factors for a disease will need case–control study or a cohort study. RQ may also culminate into clinical trial.[ 9 , 10 ] For example, effect of administration of folic acid tablet in the perinatal period in decreasing incidence of neural tube defect. Accordingly, Hs is framed.

Appropriate statistical calculations are instituted to generate sample size. The subject inclusion, exclusion criteria and time frame of research are carefully defined. The detailed subject information sheet and pro forma are carefully defined. Moreover, research is set off few examples of research methodology guided by RQ:

• Incidence of anorectal malformations among adolescent females (hospital-based survey)
• Risk factors for the development of spontaneous pneumoperitoneum in pediatric patients (case–control design and cohort study)
• Effect of technique of extramucosal ureteric reimplantation without the creation of submucosal tunnel for the preservation of upper tract in bladder exstrophy (clinical trial).

The results of the research are then be available for wider applications for health and social life

C ONCLUSION

A good RQ needs thorough literature search and deep insight into the specific area/problem to be investigated. A RQ has to be focused yet simple. Research guided by such question can have wider impact in the field of social and health research by leading to formulation of policies for the benefit of larger population.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

R EFERENCES

Explaining ambiguity in scientific language

• Original Research
• Published: 19 August 2022
• Volume 200 , article number  354 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Beckett Sterner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5219-7616 1  

774 Accesses

9 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The idea that ambiguity can be productive in data science remains controversial. Efforts to make scientific publications and data intelligible to computers generally assume that accommodating multiple meanings for words, known as polysemy, undermines reasoning and communication. This assumption has nonetheless been contested by historians, philosophers, and social scientists, who have applied qualitative research methods to demonstrate the generative and strategic value of polysemy. Recent quantitative results from linguistics have also shown how polysemy can actually improve the efficiency of human communication. I present a new conceptual typology based on a synthesis of prior research about the aims, norms, and circumstances under which polysemy arises and is evaluated. The typology supports a contextual pluralist view of polysemy’s value for scientific research practices: polysemy does both substantial positive and negative work in science, but its utility is context-sensitive in ways that are often overlooked by the norms people have formulated to regulate its use, including prior scholars researching polysemy. I also propose that historical patterns in the use of partial synonyms, i.e. terms with overlapping meanings, provide an especially promising phenomenon for integrative research addressing these issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Communicating Science: Heterogeneous, Multiform and Polysemic

On the Role of Language in Scientific Research: Language as Analytic, Expressive, and Explanatory Tool

Language, Thought, and the History of Science

Data availability.

Not applicable.

Alagić, D., & Šnajder, J. (2021). Representing word meaning in context via lexical substitutes. Automatika . https://doi.org/10.1080/00051144.2021.1928437 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Ali-Khan, S. E., Jean, A., MacDonald, E., et al. (2018). Defining Success in Open Science. Mni Open Research . https://doi.org/10.12688/mniopenres.12780.1 .

Altomonte, G. (2020). Exploiting ambiguity: A moral polysemy approach to variation in economic practices. American Sociological Review, 85 (1), 76–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419895986 .

Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with basic formal ontology . MIT Press.

Beltagy, I., Lo, K., & Cohan, A. (2019). SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.10676 [cs]

Bertone, M. A., Miko, I., Yoder, M. J., et al. (2013). Matching arthropod anatomy ontologies to the Hymenoptera Anatomy Ontology: Results from a manual alignment. Database, 2013, bas057–bas057. https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bas057 .

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (3), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500304 .

Bowker, G. C. (2000). Biodiversity datadiversity. Social Studies of Science, 30 (5), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631200030005001 .

Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT Press.

Brandom, R. B. (2008). Between saying and doing: Towards an analytic pragmatism . Oxford University Press.

Carr, J. W., Smith, K., Culbertson, J., et al. (2020). Simplicity and informativeness in semantic category systems. Cognition, 202 (104), 289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104289 .

Català, N., Baixeries, J., Ferrer-Cancho, R., et al. (2021). Zipf’s laws of meaning in Catalan. http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.00042

Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson . University of Chicago Press.

Ceusters, W., Smith, B., & Goldberg, L. (2005). A terminological and ontological analysis of the NCI thesaurus. Methods of Information in Medicine, 44 (04), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1634000 .

Currie, A. (2015). Marsupial lions and methodological omnivory: Function, success and reconstruction in paleobiology. Biology & Philosophy, 30 (2), 187–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9470-y .

Cusimano, S., & Sterner, B. (2019). Integrative pluralism for biological function. Biology & Philosophy, 34 (6), 55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9717-8 .

Davenport, S., & Leitch, S. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26 (11), 1603–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054627 .

DeFries, R., & Nagendra, H. (2017). Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science, 356 (6335), 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal1950 .

Del Tredici, M., Nissim, M., & Zaninello, A. (2016). Tracing metaphors in time through self-distance in vector spaces. http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03279 [cs]

Denis, J. L., Dompierre, G., Langley, A., et al. (2011). Escalating indecision: Between reification and strategic ambiguity. Organization Science, 22 (1), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0501 .

Devlin, J., Chang, M.W., Lee, K., et al. (2019). BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

Dietz, B. (2012). Contribution and co-production: The collaborative culture of Linnaean botany. Annals of Science, 69 (4), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2012.680982 .

Dourish, P. (2001). Process descriptions as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, GROUP ’01 (pp 52–60), https://doi.org/10.1145/500286.500297

Dragisic, Z., Ivanova, V., Li, H., et al. (2017). Experiences from the anatomy track in the ontology alignment evaluation initiative. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 8 (1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0166-5 .

Duncan, M. (2020). Terminology version control discussion paper. http://mrtablet.co.uk/chocolate_teapot_lite.htm

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51 (3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390197 .

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36 (3), 363–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614563742 .

Ferrer-i Cancho, R., Bentz, C., & Seguin, C. (2020). Optimal coding and the origins of Zipfian laws. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics . https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1778387 .

Fokkens, A., Ter Braake, S., Maks, I., et al. (2016). On the semantics of concept drift: Towards formal definitions of semantic change. Proceedings of Drift-a-LOD (2016): 247–265.

Franz, N. M., & Sterner, B. W. (2018). To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data. Database . https://doi.org/10.1093/database/bax100 .

Galison, P. (1996). Computer simulations and the trading zone. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 118–57). Stanford University Press.

Garnett, S. T., Christidis, L., Conix, S., et al. (2020). Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species. PLoS Biology, 18 (7), e3000736. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000736 .

Garson, J. (2016). A critical overview of biological functions . Springer.

Geeraerts, D. (1997). Diachronic prototype semantics: A contribution to historical lexicology . Clarendon Press.

Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A 90-year retrospective. American Psychologist, 40 (2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.40.2.181 .

Germain, P. L., Ratti, E., & Boem, F. (2014). Junk or functional DNA? ENCODE and the function controversy. Biology & Philosophy, 29 (6), 807–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9441-3 .

Gerson, E. M. (2008). Reach, bracket, and the limits of rationalized coordination: Some challenges for CSCW. Resources, co-evolution and artifacts (pp. 193–220). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-901-9_8 .

Gibson, E., Futrell, R., Piantadosi, S. P., et al. (2019). How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23 (5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003 .

Giroux, H. (2006). ‘It was such a handy term’: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43 (6), 1227–1260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00623.x .

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469 .

Grantham, T. A. (2004). Conceptualizing the (dis)unity of science. Philosophy of Science, 71 (2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1086/383008 .

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., et al. (2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: A meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61 (2), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.001 .

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation, syntax and semantics. Speech Acts, 3, 41–58.

Google Scholar  

Grosholz, E. (2007). Representation and productive ambiguity in mathematics and the sciences . Oxford University Press.

Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science studies . Southern Illinois University Press.

Hamilton, W.L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic word embeddings reveal statistical laws of semantic change. In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Berlin, Germany (pp 1489–1501). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P16-1141

Hauer, B., & Kondrak, G. (2020). Synonymy = Translational Equivalence. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13886 [cs]

Hesse, M. (1988). The cognitive claims of metaphor. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2 (1), 1–16.

Higuera, C. R. (2018). Productive perils: On metaphor as a theory-building device. Linguistic Frontiers, 1 (2), 102–111.

Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10 (2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199 .

Jarzabkowski, P., Sillince, J. A., & Shaw, D. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63 (2), 219–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709337040 .

Johansen, Winni. (2018). Strategic Ambiguity. In: The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication, edited by Robert L Heath, Winni Johansen, et al., 1st ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0170.

Karjus, A., Blythe, R.A., Kirby, S., et al. (2020). Communicative need modulates competition in language change. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.09277 [cs]

Kemp, C., Xu, Y., & Regier, T. (2018). Semantic typology and efficient communication. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4 (1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045406 .

Keuchenius, A., Törnberg, P., & Uitermark, J. (2021). Adoption and adaptation: A computational case study of the spread of Granovetter’s weak ties hypothesis. Social Networks, 66, 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.01.001 .

Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31 (2), 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 .

L’ Homme, M.C., Robichaud, B., & Subirats, C. (2020). Building multilingual specialized resources based on FrameNet: Application to the field of the environment. In: Proceedings of the International FrameNet Workshop 2020: Towards a Global, Multilingual FrameNet. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France (pp 85–92) https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.framenet-1.12

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by . University of Chicago press.

Laubichler, M. D., Prohaska, S. J., & Stadler, P. F. (2018). Toward a mechanistic explanation of phenotypic evolution: The need for a theory of theory integration. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 330 (1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.22785 .

Lean, O. M. (2021). Are bio-ontologies metaphysical theories? Synthese . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03303-4 .

Leon-Arauz, P., Martin, A. S., & Reimerink, A. (2018). The EcoLexicon English corpus as an open corpus in sketch engine. http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.05797 [cs]

Leonelli, S. (2012). Classificatory theory in data-intensive science: The case of open biomedical ontologies. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 26 (1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2012.653119 .

Leonelli, S. (2016). Data-centric biology: A philosophical study . University of Chicago Press.

Leonelli, S., & Tempini, N. (2020). Data journeys in the sciences. Springer . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37177-7 .

Lidgard, S., & Love, A. C. (2018). Rethinking living fossils. BioScience, 68 (10), 760–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biy084 .

Li, J., & Joanisse, M. F. (2021). Word senses as clusters of meaning modulations: A computational model of polysemy. Cognitive Science, 45 (4), e12955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12955 .

Linquist, S., Doolittle, W. F., & Palazzo, A. F. (2020). Getting clear about the F-word in genomics. PLoS Genetics, 16 (4), e1008702. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008702 .

Loureiro, D., Rezaee, K., Pilehvar, M. T., et al. (2021). Analysis and evaluation of language models for word sense disambiguation. Computational Linguistics (pp 1–57). https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00405

McMahan, P., & Evans, J. (2018). Ambiguity and engagement. American Journal of Sociology, 124 (3), 860–912. https://doi.org/10.1086/701298 .

Meyer, F., & Lewis, M. (2020). Modelling lexical ambiguity with density matrices. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05670 [cs]

Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38 (11), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748 .

Monckton, S., Johal, S., Packer, L., et al. (2020). Inadequate treatment of taxonomic information prevents replicability of most zoological research. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 98 (9), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2020-0027 .

Mons, B., Schultes, E., Liu, F., et al. (2019). The FAIR principles: First generation implementation choices and challenges. Data Intelligence, 2 (1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1162/dint_e_00023 .

Nakazawa, T. (2020). Species interaction: Revisiting its terminology and concept. Ecological Research, 35 (6), 1106–1113. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1703.12164 .

Nerlich, B., & Clarke, D. D. (2001). Ambiguities we live by: Towards a pragmatics of polysemy. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00132-0 .

Neto, C. (2020). When imprecision is a good thing, or how imprecise concepts facilitate integration in biology. Biology & Philosophy, 35 (6), 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-020-09774-y .

Oliveira, D., & Pesquita, C. (2018). Improving the interoperability of biomedical ontologies with compound alignments. Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 9 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-017-0171-8 .

Olson, M. E., Arroyo-Santos, A., & Vergara-Silva, F. (2019). A user’s guide to metaphors in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 34 (7), 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.001 .

Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Panchenko, A., Ruppert, E., Faralli, S., et al. (2017). Unsupervised does not mean uninterpretable : the case for word sense induction and disambiguation. In: 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics : proceedings of conference, volume 1: Long Papers. Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, pp 86–98.Stroudsburg, PA, pp 86–98. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/42007

Perrault, S. T., & O’Keefe, M. (2019). New metaphors for new understandings of genomes. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 62 (1), 1–19.

Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122 (3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004 .

Pimentel, T., Maudslay, R.H., Blasi, D., et al. (2020). Speakers fill lexical semantic gaps with context. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02172

Poesio,M. (2020).”Ambiguity".In: The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics, edited by Daniel Gutzmann, Lisa Matthewson, et al., 1st ed., 1–38. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118788516.sem098

Poirier, L. (2019). Classification as catachresis: Double binds of representing difference with semiotic infrastructure. Canadian Journal of Communication . https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2019v44n3a3455 .

Ribes, D., & Bowker, G. C. (2009). Between meaning and machine: Learning to represent the knowledge of communities. Information and Organization, 19 (4), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.001 .

Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

Schlechtweg, D., Eckmann, S., Santus, E., et al. (2017). German in flux: Detecting metaphoric change via word entropy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04971

Sennet, A. (2021). Ambiguity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2021). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

Shavit, A., & Griesemer, J. (2011). Transforming objects into data: How minute technicalities of recording “species location” entrench a basic challenge for biodiversity. In: M. Carrier & A. Nordmann, Science in the context of application (Vol. 274, pp. 169–193). Springer. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9051-5_12 .

Shipman, F. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1999). Formality considered harmful: Experiences, emerging themes, and directions on the use of formal representations in interactive systems. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 8 (4), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008716330212 .

Stankowski, S., & Ravinet, M. (2021). Quantifying the use of species concepts. Current Biology, 31 (9), R428–R429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.060 .

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations’’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

Sterner, B. W., & Franz, N. M. (2017). Taxonomy for Humans or Computers? Cognitive Pragmatics for Big Data. Biological Theory 12 (2), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-017-0259-5

Sterner, B. W., Gilbert, E. E., & Franz, N. M. (2020). Decentralized but globally coordinated biodiversity data. Frontiers in Big Data, 3 (519), 133. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.519133 .

Sterner, B. W., Witteveen, J., & Franz, N. M. (2020). Coordinating dissent as an alternative to consensus classification: Insights from systematics for bio-ontologies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 42 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-0300-z .

Swedberg, R. (2020). Using metaphors in sociology: Pitfalls and potentials. The American Sociologist, 51, 240–257.

Tahmasebi, N., Borin, L., Jatowt, A., et al. (2021). Computational approaches to semantic change. Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5040241.

Takacs, D. (1996). The idea of biodiversity: Philosophies of paradise . Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ustalov, D., Chernoskutov, M., Biemann, C., et al. (2018). Fighting with the sparsity of synonymy dictionaries for automatic synset induction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. In W. M. van der Aalst, D. I. Ignatov, M. Khachay, et al. (Eds.), Analysis of images, social networks and texts (pp. 94–105). Springer International Publishing.

Volanschi, A., & Kübler, N. (2011). The impact of metaphorical framing on term creation in biology. Terminology International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized Communication, 17 (2), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1075/term.17.2.02vol .

Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 .

Wilson, M. (2006). Wandering significance: An essay on conceptual behavior . Oxford University Press.

Winkler, S. (2015). Exploring ambiguity and the ambiguity model from a transdisciplinary perspective. In: Winkler, S. Ambiguity. De Gruyter . https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110403589-002/html .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by NSF Science and Technology Studies Grant STS-1827993. My thanks to Joeri Witteveen, Elizabeth Lerman, Nico Franz, and Manfred Laubichler for their conversations and feedback about the ideas presented here. My special thanks also to the reviewers whose constructive comments helped improve the manuscript significantly. All mistakes are entirely my own.

Funding was provided by NSF STS-1827993.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, PO Box 873301, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

Beckett Sterner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Corresponding author.

Correspondence to Beckett Sterner .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Consent to participate, consent for publication, code availability, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sterner, B. Explaining ambiguity in scientific language. Synthese 200 , 354 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x

Download citation

Received : 22 October 2021

Accepted : 23 June 2022

Published : 19 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03792-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Lexical semantics
• Computer ontologies
• Philosophy of science
• Strategic ambiguity

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Part Four: Evaluating the Truth of the Premises

Chapter Nine: How to Think About Truth

For to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false. And to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true. —Aristotle, Metaphysics

TRUTH , n. An ingenious compound of desirability and appearance. —Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary

• Objectivity and Truth
• Probability, Evidence, and Truth
• Self-Evidence
• Experiential Evidence
• Strategies for Evaluating Premises

This chapter provides an introduction to one of the central merits of arguments: the truth of premises. In a way, the entire book is about truth, since it aims to offer guidance, by way of good reasoning, for anyone who wishes to know the truth. But the point of this chapter is more specific: it aims to provide detailed practical directions for thinking about whether premises are true.

Remember—it takes only one false premise to render any argument unsound. [1]  A false premise doesn’t guarantee that the conclusion is false, since anyone can concoct a bad argument for a true conclusion. But if the unsound argument is the best reason you have for that conclusion, then it does guarantee that you have no good reason to accept the conclusion as true.

9.1 Objectivity and Truth

9.1.1 two laws of truth.

There are two venerable so-called laws of truth which serve us well for practical purposes. One of them, the law of noncontradiction, says that no statement is both true and false. It follows from this that truth is objective and absolute—there cannot be any statement, for example, that is true for you but false for me. Its flip side is the law of the excluded middle, which says that every statement is either true or false. It follows from this that there is no middle ground between the true and the false. Truth-values are evaluations—like true and false —that can be given of how well a statement fits with the world. (In the same way, moral values include evaluations—like good and evil —that can be given of, say, actions; and aesthetic values include evaluations—like beautiful and ugly —that can be given of, say, paintings). Another way of stating the law of the excluded middle is to say there are exactly two truth-values—namely, true and false —with nothing in the middle.

Why, then, is it so commonly asserted that truth is relative, that “what is true for you may be false for me”—a remark that seems to violate the law of noncontradiction? According to one poll, 62 percent of American adults believe that “there is no such thing as absolute truth.” The proportion rises to 74 percent for those ranging in age from 18 to 25. [2]

Should this be interpreted as flagrant disregard for the law of noncontradiction? Probably not. The survey response provides a good opportunity to apply the principle of charity; these apparent denials of absolute truth are often used as a convenient shorthand for a variety of other related and reasonable expressions, including these:

What you believe to be true I may believe to be false. What works in your life may not work in mine. The way you see things may not be the way I see things. The evidence available to you may not be available to me. What is reasonable for you may not be reasonable for me. Neither one of us is in the position to decide the truth for everyone everywhere always.

These paraphrases not only are fully harmonious with the law of noncontradiction, but also are absolutely true.

As Aristotle says, a true statement is one that says of what is that it is and of what is not that it is not. What is may appear to you to be different from the way it appears to me. And you may desire it to be different from the way I desire it to be. But this can’t make what is be two different ways at the same time; it can be only the way it is. When Ambrose Bierce writes satirically of “an ingenious compound of desirability and appearance” it is not really truth that he refers to (and he knows it) but what is often believed to be the truth.

Two Practical Laws of Truth

• Law of noncontradiction —no statement is both true and false.
• Law of excluded middle —every statement is either true or false.

9.1.2 Ambiguity Rather than Relative Truth

Some statements appear to violate these laws even though, on closer inspection, they do not. Consider the following:

Today is July 9. My name is David Carl Wilson. A train station is one mile from here. Chocolate ice cream tastes bad.

When I express these words here and now the statements are true. But when you express them at a different place and time, the statements are probably false. Does this mean they are both true and false or, perhaps, that they are neither?

No. In each case there are two different statements, one true, the other false. We are tempted to think otherwise only because the statements can be referentially ambiguous (to make use of terminology from Chapter 5). When I say today on July 9, it refers to July 9—thus, it can be disambiguated with the true statement Today, July 9, is July 9. But when you say it on November 18, it refers to November 18, and would be properly disambiguated by the false statement Today, November 18, is July 9. My name is David Carl Wilson and A train station is one mile from here are similar. The referents of my and here   would change with a change of speaker and location; when disambiguated, it would become clear that the statement with a different referent is a different statement.

Chocolate ice cream tastes bad is a trickier case. When I say it now it is true, but I probably mean to allow that it could be false when you say it or even when I say it next month. (If I mean instead that it tastes bad always and for everyone—and that you’re just mistaken if you think it tastes good—then I may have a strange view, but there is no apparent lack of objectivity to explain away.) But the statement includes no expression that changes its referent when expressed by a different person or at a different time or in a different place. This is because such an expression is implicit; what I am really saying is Chocolate ice cream tastes bad to me now, which can be made even clearer as Chocolate ice cream tastes bad to David Carl Wilson on July 9.  So when you say it, or when I say it next month, it really is a different statement with potentially a different truth-value. The same thing is usually true of any other sentence including a subjective verb such as tastes, looks, smells, feels, or sounds.

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (a)

Paraphrase each statement to eliminate the appearance that its truth is relative. (You do not need to make the statement true; simply eliminate any possibility of referential ambiguity.)

Sample exercise. My state is one of the biggest in America.

Sample answer.  California is one of the biggest states in America.

• Harleys are the best-sounding bikes on the road.
• My brother is shorter than I am.
• Last year our country enjoyed a boom in the stock market.
• The home team is enjoying a winning season.

9.1.3 Some Cases in Which You Can’t Decide

I have described the two laws of truth as “useful for practical purposes”—not as necessary, inviolate, and unbending. This is because language is not always law-abiding. The ordinary folks who constantly use language in new and serviceable ways seldom get a note from their logician first. The result is that there are some interesting and puzzling cases in which it is at least conceivable that a statement is both true and false, or that it is neither true nor false. And in each case, there is not any simple and uncontroversial way of settling the matter (though in none of these cases is there any worry about whether truth is objective).

• Robert is bald. (Imagine that Robert is exactly in the border area between bald and not bald.)
• Hans is a Kraut. (Imagine that it is true that Hans is German, but false that Hans is deserving of disparagement on that count.)
• This sentence is false. (Just think about it!)
• Hercules cleaned the Augean stables. (It isn’t clearly true, since Hercules didn’t even exist, but it also seems mistaken to say it is false, since it is certainly truer than, say, Hercules cleaned the Augean stables using power tools. )

Sometimes there is a well-defined fictional world that a character such as Hercules inhabits; in those cases, the best strategy is to evaluate premises like Hercules cleaned the Augean stables according to whether they are true or false in their fictional world. Otherwise, in the fairly unusual instances when statements like these four appear as premises, it is best to evaluate them as can’t decide, with an explanation.

Generally, as we will see, when you evaluate a premise as can’t decide it will be because the evidence you have is more or less evenly balanced; if you were able to collect more evidence, you would be able eventually to settle the question. But it is at least conceivable in these four cases that the reason for evaluating a premise as can’t decide is that there is no fact of the matter—perhaps the statement is neither true nor false, or both true and false, and thus there is no choice to be made regardless of how much evidence you go on to collect. (On this option, indeterminate could actually be a third truth-value, between truth and falsity. ) Fortunately, given our practical aims in this text, we don’t need to decide why we can’t decide in these sorts of cases.

9.2 Probability, Evidence, and Truth

What makes a statement true is the way the world is; and it is always possible for me to make a mistake about the way the world is. This is because the world is one thing, while my judgment about the world is something else—and as the ancient proverb says, there is many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip. Many things can go wrong in that gap between the world and my judgment about it, no matter how tiny the gap might be. I may have poor evidence. I may be subject to wishful thinking. I may be inattentive. I may be fooled. Thus, it is ordinarily better to avoid evaluating premises with the unmodified adjectives true and false and to prefer expressions such as probably true and probably false (or even, in the strongest cases, certainly true and certainly false, assuming that by this we mean extremes in probability).

9.2.1 Probability as a Measure of Evidence

But what exactly is meant here by probably ? There are at least three different and legitimate notions of probability. The one that we are most concerned with in this text is epistemic probability . which is the likelihood that a statement is true, given the total evidence available to you—that is, given all of your background beliefs and experiences. ( Epistemic means having to do with knowledge. ) This is the notion of probability that should be used in your evaluation of premises. To say in your evaluation that a premise is probably true is just to say that you have fairly good evidence for its truth.

Unlike truth, epistemic probability always comes in degrees. It ranges along a continuum that can be expressed either colloquially (ranging from certainly true to certainly false ) or quantitatively (ranging from 1 to 0, respectively). Here are some examples:

Degrees of Epistemic Probability

Although it can sometimes be useful to express these probabilities quantitatively, doing so is likely to convey a false sense of precision. I might be able to tell the difference between beliefs with epistemic probabilities of .6 and .9 (that is, those that are somewhat probable and those that are very probable), but I doubt that I could discriminate between a .84 and a .85 belief. So I will rely chiefly on the less precise—but less misleading—colloquial expressions.

Epistemic probability, again unlike truth, has a very definite relative component. It is relative to you. It is your evidence— your background beliefs and experiences—that determine whether a statement is epistemically probable for you. There is widespread agreement about epistemic probabilities among many people regarding many statements. This is because we share such a wide range of background beliefs and experiences. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.S. geography, for example, would assign a very high epistemic probability to this statement:

Alaska is larger than Rhode Island.

But consider this statement:

Minnesota is larger than Oregon.

I would have to say that I can’t decide (or that it has an epistemic probability of about .5). My meager evidence does not point clearly in either direction. But there are others (the current governors of the two states, for example, or those who are interested enough to Google it) who have evidence for its truth or falsity which is every bit as strong as the evidence most of us share regarding the statement about Alaska and Rhode Island. For them, it is either almost certainly true or almost certainly false (that is, it has an epistemic probability either close to 1 or close to 0).

It is important to add that epistemic probability has an objective component as well. Given the evidence that you have, there is nothing relative about how probable it makes the premise. There is a fact of the matter about how probable it is—regardless of whether you assess its probability correctly or not. In this way, epistemic probability is like the strike zone in baseball. A pitched ball is in the strike zone if it is over home plate and between the knees and arms of the batter. The strike zone is relative to the batter because a shorter batter or a batter who crouches will have a smaller strike zone. But it also has an objective component. Given the size and stance of the individual batter, there is an objective fact about whether the ball is in the zone—regardless of whether the batter assesses it correctly or not.

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (b)

Provide two statements to which most people would assign the following measure of epistemic probability.

Sample exercise. Certainly false.

Sample answer. Two and two are five. The United States has 100 states.

• Certainly true.
• Probably true.
• Can’t decide.
• Probably false.
• Certainly false.

9.2.2 Probability as a Measure of Confidence

There is a second notion of probability, one that is not necessarily connected to evidence. Suppose you say, “I’m probably going to win the lottery, even though I realize that everything points against it.” You are acknowledging that the evidence is bad and thus that the epistemic probability of your winning is low. In this case, to say that you will probably win is to say merely that you have confidence you will win. You are not describing the strength of your evidence but the strength of your confidence, that is, the strength of your belief.

This is sometimes termed subjective probability and may be roughly defined as the amount of confidence you have that a given statement is true. Like epistemic probability, it is a matter of degrees and can also be expressed in colloquial terms ranging from certainly true to certainly false or in quantitative terms ranging from 1 to 0. But, unlike epistemic probability, it is relative to you; there is no fact over and above your level of confidence.

If we are intellectually honest—if our aim is to know the truth regarding the questions we care about—then we will endeavor to match subjective probability to epistemic probability. That is to say, we will aim to have the amount of confidence in a statement’s truth that is warranted by the total available evidence. When we succeed, our evaluations of probability will at the same time indicate both epistemic and subjective probability. This frequently does not happen. Even when my evidence for a belief remains the same from today to tomorrow, my mood about it may change. In Chapter 1 much was said about cases in which we adopt and support beliefs with little regard for the evidence—sometimes because of our innocent misuse of shortcuts in reasoning, sometimes because of bad motives. The problem in those cases can now be stated in another way—as the problem of mismatch between the subjective and epistemic probabilities.

The importance of matching subjective with epistemic probability, however, should not tempt you to make certain mistakes. Note, for example, that if I find that my confidence outstrips my apparent evidence—if, for example, I have a hunch that you are a decent human being despite my inability to say exactly why—this is not necessarily an indicator of bad reasoning or dishonesty on my part. It may mean there is some good reason submerged within my total evidence that I have not yet been able to put my finger on—I sense a reason is there, but it isn’t vivid enough for my thinking to have quickly turned it up. Hunches can go in either direction, however—they may be caused by still-subconscious evidence, or they may be caused by wishful thinking. There is no formula for telling the difference; continued cultivation of the intellectual virtues is the only way to get better at doing so.

Another mistake to avoid is the assumption that I must act with tentativeness if my belief is tentative—that is, if my belief is only slightly probable (whether epistemically or subjectively). Consider the statement My child is at the bottom of the pool. If both my evidence and my confidence are only slightly greater than .5 that this is true, it surely does not follow that I should be tentative as I dive in to rescue what may be my child. In short, when it comes to beliefs about the way the world is, confidence about how the belief translates into action must be distinguished from confidence in the belief itself. [3]

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (c)

For each of these statements, describe a way in which your own epistemic and subjective probabilities might differ.

Sample exercise. The Yankees will win the World Series this year.

Sample answer. The epistemic probability might be in the area of “somewhat probable that this is false,” since the evidence suggests that they are one of the best teams, but only one of the teams will get through every round of the playoffs and end up on top. But the subjective probability might be very high—I may strongly believe it strictly because I am a lifelong Yankee fan.

• The proposed law eliminating a state sales tax will pass.
• Napoleon was the greatest military leader of all time.
• The professor was biased against me when he graded my paper.
• It won’t rain today.
• Even though I’m only three months pregnant, I can just tell this baby is going to be a boy.
• My nephew is the best candidate for the position I’m now hiring for.
• My car can go a long way after the gas gauge is on empty.
• I don’t have a cold, just allergies.

9.2.3 Probability as a Measure of Frequency

There is a third notion of probability—one that occurs often in science, and that differs from the others in that it is entirely objective. Suppose I say, “50 percent of all fair coin tosses come up heads, so there is a .5 probability that this coin toss will come up heads.” I am talking about frequency probability , which may be roughly defined as the likelihood that a specific thing has a property, based on the frequency with which all things of that sort have the property. The probability statement in the example ( There is a .5 probability that this coin toss will come up heads ) is based on a frequency statement about how frequently fair coin tosses do come up heads ( 50 percent of all fair coin tosses come up heads ). [4] This is why it is called frequency probability. And because these frequencies are said to occur in the world, independently of our beliefs about them, frequency probability is entirely objective.

Determining the objective facts does involve us subjectively; I try to establish the epistemic probability of a certain frequency probability—that is, I rely on evidence that a certain sort of thing occurs in the world with a certain frequency. But the truth of a typical statement about frequency has nothing to do with whether anyone believes it, has evidence for it, or makes any judgment about it; so this is an entirely objective notion. (Frequency probability is introduced here solely to contrast it with subjective and epistemic probability. We will not need to otherwise refer to it until Chapter 13, when we cover frequency syllogisms.)

Types of Probability

9.3 Self-Evidence

Because your evaluations must be expressed in language, you will typically support your beliefs by referring to other beliefs of yours. Recall sample evaluations we have already done. Why do I think, for example, that the sentence Not many people are qualified to work as lifeguards is probably true? Because of another belief of mine— Lifeguards must be in excellent physical shape, must be able to swim well, and must have extensive training. And why do I believe that the sentence If air sacs in birds play a role in their breathing, then carbon monoxide introduced into the air sacs will kill them is probably true? Because of another belief of mine— Carbon monoxide interferes with the ability of blood to carry life-sustaining oxygen.

You are making use of inferential evidence when you support a belief by another belief, since you are saying that you infer one from the other. But you have more than inferential evidence available to you when you consider your evidence. If you had only inferential evidence, then ultimately all of your beliefs would be supported only by one another—and they would together be as well supported as a castle in the clouds. You also have noninferential evidence —that is, you can appeal to something other than your beliefs in support of your beliefs. Noninferential evidence may be divided into two categories: self-evidence and experiential evidence. (Of course, you will be able to express even your non-inferential evidence only as beliefs; but since they are beliefs about self-evidence and experiential evidence, that is enough to bring the castle down out of the clouds and put it on firm ground.)

9.3.1 Self-Evidence and Definition

Suppose you have the easy task of evaluating the following premise:

All bachelors are unmarried.

In most contexts, you do not have to think very hard about why you believe that a premise like this is true. There seems to be no need, for example, to think about what other beliefs lead you to believe this or to look for experiential evidence—to interview bachelors, for example, to find out whether they are married. You can see that it is simply true by definition. Suppose, alternatively, the premise had been this:

Some married men are bachelors.

You might, for similar reasons, say that you can see that it is false by definition.

The evidence we have in these cases is self-evidence , since within the statement itself is found the most important evidence bearing on its truth or falsity—namely, the evidence of the meanings of the words themselves. [5] A statement that can be seen to be true or false by definition may be described as self-evidently true or false. In self-evidently true or false statements, if you understand what the words mean you ordinarily need no other evidence to make a reasonable decision about truth or falsity.

Shakespeare illustrates this when he has Hamlet tell his friends that he brings “wonderful news,” namely that “there’s ne’er a villain dwelling in all Denmark, but he’s an arrant knave.” Horatio answers, “There needs no ghost, my Lord, come from the grave to tell us this.” In other words, to say that all villains are knaves is self-evidently true to all those who understand the words villain and knave. Self-evidence, however, like all other evidence, is relative to the person; if villain and knave are not included in your vocabulary, Hamlet’s statement will nevertheless be true, but its truth will not be evident to you.

There is much to keep in mind, however, before blithely judging premises to be self-evidently true or false. The term self-evident easily lends itself to abuse; Ambrose Bierce defined it as “evident to one’s self and to no one else.” The point is to avoid using it as another way of saying “it is obvious to me.” Even if something is obvious to you, the purpose of your evaluation is to provide the reasons why it is obvious to you. And only one such reason may be that it is self-evident.

The most famous use of the expression is in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . . .” But Thomas Jefferson’s use here—while entirely appropriate for that context—is broader than the use recommended for your evaluations. Jefferson might be described as appealing not to definitional but to conversational self-evidence (that is, he appeals to what is evident to ourselves ). Jefferson’s conviction that all men are created equal was not based on his understanding of the meanings of terms such as men, created, and equal. His point was that it was evident to all participants in the conversation—to the writers and to the intended audience—that all men are created equal; given this agreement, for the purposes of the conversation there was no need to provide any supporting reasons. This is a perfectly good way to use the expression, but we will use it more narrowly.

Likewise, exercise caution before you judge a premise to be self-evidently false. Consider again the preceding simple example:

It would be extremely unusual for someone to make such an obvious mistake. Thus, it provides an especially important opportunity to apply the principle of charity. Is there some clue in the context to suggest, for example, that the arguer is using bachelor or married metaphorically or as shorthand for something else? Maybe the context suggests that the arguer simply means that some married men behave like bachelors. If that proved to be the case, then rather than calling the premise self-evidently false, it would be preferable to paraphrase it charitably and grant that it is almost certainly true—based, perhaps, on your own experience of the behavior of some married men.

This doesn’t mean you will find no self-evidently false statements. The great actor John Barrymore once received a call from the secretary of one of Hollywood’s most important producers. “I am speaking for Mr. Laskin, who wants you to attend an important party he is giving tomorrow,” said the other voice imperiously. “And I,” said Barrymore, “am speaking for John Barrymore, who has a previous engagement which he will make as soon as you have hung up.” There is no problem in understanding Barrymore’s reply to be self-evidently false. The context shows that he meant it to be so, since he clearly meant to return Mr. Laskin’s insult. [6]

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (d)

For each premise, state whether it is self-evidently true, self-evidently false, or neither.

Sample exercise. Abraham Lincoln was president of the United States.

Sample answer. Neither.

• Squares have four sides.
• Mammals are larger than insects.
• Milk is white.
• The future lies before us.
• My mother is one of my parents.
• Instruction at the beginning of a Robert Schumann composition: “To be played as fast as possible.” Instruction a few measures later: “Faster.” Consider the statement: The second instruction can be followed.
• Former NBA star Charles Barkley published an autobiography titled Outrageous. Asked about a particular remark he made in it, he replied, “I was misquoted.”
• In Tom Sawyer Abroad, Mark Twain has Huck Finn report: “They was all Moslems, Tom said, and when I asked him what Moslems was, he said it was a person that wasn’t a Presbyterian. So there is plenty of them in Missouri, though I didn’t know it before.” Suppose the premise is this: Moslems are, by definition, any persons who are not Presbyterians.

9.3.2 Stipulative Definitions

When we say that a statement is seen to be true by definition, or that it is self-evidently true, we are normally assuming that the words in the statement are being used in a standard way. On some occasions, however, an arguer will decree a nonstandard definition for a term; in such a case, the arguer is using a stipulative definition .

Stipulative definitions can be quite useful. They are sometimes used to add precision to a discussion; in an argument about poverty, the arguer might say, “By poor I mean a family of four that earns less than $12,000 per year.” On other occasions, new words are introduced and defined by stipulation, usually for picking out a notion for which we have no handy term; “By blik, ” the philosopher R. M. Hare has said, “I refer to the theoretical framework one uses to interpret the world.”

Premises that stipulate a definition are certainly entitled to be evaluated as self-evidently true, since they are, by stipulation, true by definition. But they do present opportunities for committing the fallacy of equivocation. Suppose after stipulating the preceding definition for poor, I say, “So quit claiming to be poor; you earn almost $13,000 a year for your family.” The conclusion has to do with someone’s real-world concern about being poor; as such, it uses poor in its normal sense, which involves not only yearly earnings but also how many people are supported by the earnings, the other financial resources the family has, and the necessary expenses of the family. But the premise uses it in the more precise, stipulated sense. So the meaning of the term poor has shifted between premise and conclusion, and this means the argument commits the fallacy of equivocation. As described in Chapter 5, the ambiguity should be eliminated in the clarifying process.

A newspaper story seeking to determine the greatest athletes of all time includes the following argument:

Defining athletic greatness as the ability to prove it in at least two highly competitive areas, Babe Ruth was number one. As a pitcher he was a World Series winner, and as a hitter he revolutionized the game. He was the greatest of them all.

One premise of this argument is found in the first sentence, which might be paraphrased as follows:

1. Athletic greatness is to be defined as the ability to prove it in at least two highly competitive areas.

But (skipping the remainder of the argument) the conclusion is this:

• ∴ Babe Ruth was the greatest athlete.

Since 1 is a stipulated definition, C is supported only if “greatest athlete” is used there in the same stipulated, nonstandard way as in 1. To avoid equivocation, it should be disambiguated something like this:

• ∴ Babe Ruth did more than anyone else to prove his athletic ability in at least two highly competitive areas.

Once paraphrased, the question whether he was the greatest athlete (in the standard, non-stipulative sense of the term) remains unanswered by the argument. The argument may now be seen to commit a second argument-based fallacy—the fallacy of missing the point.

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (e)

Create an argument that commits the fallacy of equivocation due to a stipulative definition.

Sample exercise. Term: fish. Argue that you did not exceed the limit on fish.

Sample answer. Trout are too wonderful to be considered mere fish. I do not include trout in the definition of fish. So, Mr. Ranger, you can’t cite me for exceeding the limit of 12 fish, since I have 4 bass and 11 trout.

• Term: gift. Argue that you did not forget to give your friend a birthday gift since you did leave a voice mail.
• Term: music. Argue that your friend’s “Chopsticks” rendition on the piano is not music.
• Term: steal. Argue that by shoplifting a bar of candy you were not stealing.
• Term: dependent. Argue that you can claim four dependents on your federal tax return since you have a cat and three still-uncaught mice.

9.4 Experiential Evidence

So far we have covered two broad categories of evidence that you will find relevant in putting together the evaluation of a premise. First, there is inferential evidence—that is, other beliefs of yours from which you can infer your evaluation. Second, there is noninferential evidence of a sort that we have termed self-evidence; this is the evidence found in the meanings of terms themselves. But there is another important category that is also noninferential in nature. It is experiential evidence , the evidence provided by sense experience.

9.4.1 What You Have Directly Observed

The most obvious experiential evidence is that which you have observed—what you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched. Suppose an arguer uses the following premise:

1. All swans are white.

In your evaluation of this premise you might be fully entitled, on the basis of your observations—that is, your sense experience—to say this:

Premise 1 is almost certainly false because I personally saw a black swan at the local zoo.

These sorts of appeals to observation are natural, intuitive, and legitimate. There are, however, three important questions that you should ask when you make such appeals to observation.

The first question is How reliable was your observation, given the circumstances? Perhaps you are not particularly skilled at identifying swans. Or perhaps the lighting was bad, you had a poor viewing angle, you had left your glasses in the car, or the swan had just emerged from the mud. Any of these circumstances would make your observation less than reliable, and if you were aware of the undermining circumstances you should have had less confidence in the observation and, on that basis, should have adjusted the probability in your evaluation.

The second question is How reliable is your memory of the observation? Observations that you appeal to as evidence are ordinarily observations that you remember, not observations that are occurring at that moment. If you just a moment ago made the observation, your memory is probably highly reliable. But you depend on many observations that you made days, weeks, and years ago. Time presents opportunities for memories to fade and to be unconsciously revised—all the more likely if wishful thinking or someone else’s suggestion is prompting you to remember one way rather than another. We are all familiar with this phenomenon, and scientific research has confirmed it. As for the black swan, chances are that your memory is serving you well. But you may have reason to consider it less reliable if I said to you, “After all, it was a couple of years ago. And haven’t you conveniently forgotten that you argued heatedly with me at the time, since I was insisting that it was just an odd-shaped piece of wood protruding from the water?”

The third question is How probable would your belief be had you not made the observation? A slightly more technical way of putting exactly the same thing is to ask what the prior probability of the belief is. (In this case, prior simply means independent of the observation ; and it is epistemic probability that is referred to.) The higher the prior probability of the observation, the more reliable it is. Thus, the more likely it is that there is a black swan at the zoo, independent of your having observed it, the more you can trust your observation of it to be reliable. Suppose you read a feature story in the local newspaper that comments on the pride the zoo takes in its collection of five white swans, the only swans it has ever had for the last 10 years. This would significantly reduce the prior probability that there is a black swan and would render your observation somewhat less reliable. It would not mean that you didn’t see one—the news account could have been mistaken, or a black swan may have stopped over for a visit on the day you were there. But it would mean that a single observation has only limited evidential weight.

If someone tells you that a car is coming down the road, you accept it with no question. If someone tells you that several frogs flying on lily pads are coming down the road, you may suggest they take another look. Consider the observations, contained in the following Los Angeles Times account, that some have made on the Willcox Playa, a remote and eerie expanse of desert in southern Arizona:

Most stunning are the Playa’s endless mirages. Everyone sees them. Everyone swears by them—buildings rising from the shimmering horizon, trucks speeding along upside down, groups of people dancing. Pete Cowgill, former outdoor writer for the Arizona Daily Star, once saw a Southern Pacific train chugging across the Playa. As he watched, the engine disappeared into the earth. The next car followed it, then the next, and the next. “One by one, about a hundred cars flat disappeared,” says Cowgill. “It was the most fascinating non-sight I ever saw.”

On the desert and far from any railroad tracks, the prior probability that a train will pass by—and disappear into the earth—is virtually nil. Seeing it was not reason enough for Cowgill to believe it and should not have been. In short, the more preposterous the belief—that is, the lower its prior probability—the stronger the evidence needed to support it. As Sherlock Holmes says in The Valley of Fear:

I ought to know by this time that when a fact appears opposed to a long train of deductions, it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation.

And this applies even if what is opposed to the long train of deductions is a long train of Southern Pacific rail cars.

Three Questions to Ask of Any Observation

• How reliable was your observation, given the circumstances?
• How reliable is your memory of the observation?
• How probable would your belief be had you not made the observation?

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (f)

Propose a way in which the described observation might be unreliable, and explain why.

Sample exercise. You recall that your older brother was at your 10th birthday party.

Sample answer. Your parents and brother all remember that he was away at camp that year. This means that there is a very low prior probability that he was there.

• You hear someone blowing a whistle.
• You remember hearing someone blowing a whistle.
• You see your mother at the bus station.
• You see the president of the United States at the bus station.
• You remember your professor saying that there would be no final exam.
• You remember your professor saying there would be a final exam.
• You feel a spider on your neck.

9.4.2 What Authorities Have Reported

Reports from authorities make up one important part of your experience. (They are part of your experience because the reports are themselves something that you see or hear.) An authority is simply someone who is presumed to be in a better position than you to know the truth about the premise in question. This superiority may be due to either special ability or special access. A scientist or expert may have special ability to evaluate certain information; an eyewitness or a journalist may have special access to certain information.

As noted in Chapter 8, appealing to authority should be scrupulously avoided in circumstances where you are just as capable as anyone else of thinking through a view. In such cases, appealing to authority merely promotes intellectual timidity and can undermine the virtue of intellectual honesty. But we are quite right to rely on the authoritative reports of others for vast numbers of our beliefs, including most of our beliefs about science, history, and current affairs. There are two questions that you should ask to be sure that your use of authority is appropriate.

The first question is, How reliable is the authority’s report, given the circumstances?

A variety of circumstances can undermine the reliability of an authority’s report. A witness’s memory can be subject to “creative” forces of which the witness is unaware. Or an expert might be an expert—but on a different topic. But perhaps the most important undermining circumstance is conflict of interest. It would ordinarily be in the best interest of most authorities to be reliable. But that interest can be overridden by other competing interests. This can be a problem for journalists, for example. One media critic, David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, identifies what he calls several “basic flaws in the way the contemporary news organizations function.” They include the following: “Pack journalism. Laziness. Superficiality. Cozy relationships with prosecutors. A competitive zeal that sends reporters off in a frantic search to be first with the latest shocking allegation, responsible journalism be damned. A tradition that often discourages reporters from raising key questions. . . .”

Like journalists, trained experts can also be rendered less than reliable due to overriding interests. Note, for example, this brief item from the Chronicle of Higher Education :

The spring sale catalog from LSU Press includes ads for a collection of essays by Cleanth Brooks and one by Louis Rubin. The blurb for the Brooks collection calls him “our best critic” and continues, “These essays are vintage Brooks.” The blurb for Rubin’s book calls him “one of the very best of our literary critics” and goes on to affirm that “these essays are vintage Rubin.” Curiously, the commendation for Brooks comes from the pen of Rubin, whose commendation comes from—you guessed it—Brooks.

This provides no reason to think that either Brooks or Rubin is deceiving us; but they do apparently have a conflict of interest, and thus we should have more to go on than their reports if we are to confidently believe that either of them is “among our best critics.”

The second question is, How probable would the statement be if you had no report from the authority? As in the last section, a more technical way of putting this is to ask what the prior probability of the statement is, where prior simply means supposing you had no report from the authority. If a normally reliable witness reports seeing green men come out of a spaceship or Elvis come out of a deli on Broadway, that should not be enough to persuade us. If a normally reliable scientist reports success in building a perpetual motion machine or in achieving cold fusion in a tabletop apparatus, we should reserve judgment until additional evidence is amassed. Improbable things often do turn out to be true. But the more improbable it is, the less ready we should be to accept it solely on the report of an authority.

Sometimes a report will reach you after passing through a chain of authorities. Your friend may tell you that she heard on the news that a scientist has made a certain new discovery. Every link in the chain—your friend, the newscaster, and the scientist—must be reliable; and the more improbable the discovery, the more reliable each must be. And note that there are probably other links that you do now know about—the individuals or services, for example, who got the information from the scientist and passed it on to the newscaster. Those links must also be reliable.

Two Questions to Ask of Any Presumed Authority

• How reliable is the authority, given the circumstances?
• How probable would the statement be if you had no report from the authority?

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (g)

Identify the authority and the claim supported by the authority in each of the passages below. State what makes the authority less than perfectly reliable.

Sample exercise. Philadelphia lawyer Jay Lambert recalls a tough medical malpractice case against his client, a neurosurgeon, eight years ago. Lambert was fretting over a damaging report filed by an opposing “expert.” On the eve of trial, Lambert called a contact in the expert’s hometown and hit pay dirt. It seems the expert wrote the report but was in a federal penitentiary—where he was doing time for falsifying medical reports. — Forbes

Sample answer.  The medical expert filed a report showing that Lambert’s client might well be guilty. But his reliability as a medical expert is questionable, given that he has been convicted of falsifying medical reports.

• A network news program advertises that their exclusive interview with the president will definitively settle the latest White House scandal.
• A large corporation announces that, overall, employees have benefited from the latest round of downsizing.
• The National Golf Foundation (which in part exists in order to promote golf) has projections which show that the country’s golf boom will require more than 300 new courses a year for the next several years.
• A young doctor listened intently to a panel of distinguished physicians discuss advances in hypertension treatment at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Family Physicians. By the end of the three-hour presentation, he was thinking seriously about switching some of his hypertensive patients to a drug called a calcium channel blocker, which was much discussed at the presentation. The pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle sponsored the seminar, as the young physician knew. But he didn’t realize that Searle—which was then running a promotional campaign for Calan, one of several calcium channel blockers—had carefully picked speakers who were well-known advocates for this class of drugs. — Consumer Reports
• An unemployed Texas salesman on Monday claimed that his father was one of three people who killed John F. Kennedy. Ricky Don White contends that his father joined the Dallas police department in September 1963 to carry out the assassination. He said his father, Roscoe White, was one of three CIA operatives who fired the shots. He said that his father also killed Dallas police officer J. D. Tippet about an hour after the assassination. Tippet’s killing has long been blamed on Oswald. White said that his father served in the Marines with Oswald. He made his claims during a news conference at the JFK Assassination Information Center, a privately run group that researches various assassination theories. White acknowledged that he has tried to sell a book or movie on his theory. —Associated Press

Two Kinds of Evidence

• Inferential evidence
• Self-evidence
• Experiential evidence

9.5 Strategies for Evaluating Premises

To evaluate the truth of a premise is to consider its epistemic probability—that is, to consider the quality of your evidence for it. How should you describe this evidence in the relevant portion of your evaluation of the argument?

9.5.1 The Reasonable Objector over Your Shoulder

In evaluating premises, try not to focus on what others—say, your peers or professors—expect you to believe or what beliefs they might find impressive. A much better place to start is by asking yourself what you actually do believe, more or less instinctively, about the premise, and what your actual evidence seems to be for that belief. And be sure that what you settle on is a real reason and not merely a restatement of the premise in slightly different words (nor a restatement of the denial of the premise, if you take it to be false).

As you think about the premise, remember the strategy of writing your evaluation as though there is a reasonable objector looking over your shoulder. Thus, you must satisfy someone who has roughly the same evidence that you have and who possesses the intellectual virtues of honesty, critical reflection, and inquiry. This may help you to keep the intellectual virtues in the forefront of your mind, in ways such as this:

• Exhibit critical reflection by asking what your evidence is, whether it supports your belief, and whether either your evidence or your belief can be improved.
• Exhibit inquisitiveness by seeking more evidence if it is meager (and withhold judgment if there is no opportunity to seek further evidence).
• Exhibit intellectual honesty by insuring that your chief objective in evaluating this premise is to know whether it is true or false regardless of your prejudices. Try to identify your own biases and habitual modes of thinking, and watch for them as you evaluate your evidence.

In your evaluation of every premise, you will provide your judgment and your defense of that judgment. Given that you will be doing this with a reasonable objector over your shoulder, you should also be prepared to provide, where necessary, a brief response to reasonable objections that might be raised. To the premise All swans are white, for example, we’ve already seen the following sample evaluation:

Premise 1 is almost certainly false, since I personally saw a black swan at the local zoo.

But black swans are rare; since the prior probability of your sighting is quite low, a reasonable objector is likely to object that it is best to remain unpersuaded until stronger evidence comes along. Your evaluation is much stronger if you anticipate that objection and deal with it in advance; here is one way you might do that:

Premise 1 is almost certainly false, since I personally saw a black swan at the local zoo. I realize, of course, that they are quite rare; so I made a special effort to be sure that I got a good look and wasn’t being misled in any way. I checked with others around me and they agreed that they also saw a black swan.

At this point, the objector would probably have to be unreasonable to continue to object.

Or consider the premise If air sacs in birds play a role in their breathing, then carbon monoxide introduced into the air sacs will kill them. Our sample evaluation goes something like this:

Premise 1 is probably true, since carbon monoxide interferes with the ability of blood to carry life-sustaining oxygen.

How might a reasonable objector find fault with this? One sensible objection might be that nothing has been said here about how much carbon monoxide it takes to have this effect, nor how much is being administered to the birds. It might be better to say can’t decide, due to the limited information. You have two choices at this point: concede that the objector has a good point (as always, since by definition the objector is reasonable!) and revise your judgment to can’t decide, or revise your defense slightly, as follows:

Premise 1 is probably true, since carbon monoxide interferes with the ability of blood to carry life-sustaining oxygen. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the scientist who is conducting the experiment is competent enough to know how much carbon monoxide is required and to introduce at least that much into the air sacs.

This seems to be a reasonable assumption and should satisfy the objector.

Let’s look at one more example, the premise Not many people are qualified to work as lifeguards. The sample evaluation is this:

Premise 1 is almost certainly true, since lifeguards must be in excellent physical shape, must be able to swim well, and must have extensive training—qualifications that are rare.

I can’t think of a reasonable objection to this defense and thus would leave the evaluation as it is.

These guidelines apply to any judgment you have about the premise—even if it is can’t decide. When you cannot decide, explain why you cannot decide. Chances are it will be because the evidence—whether there is a lot or a little—is balanced. In these cases, state the best reason you can come up with on each side. Don’t feel that you must force a decision, but don’t use cannot decide as an excuse for not thinking. When you do use it, be sure to show that you have thought carefully about it.

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (h)

For each of the evaluations of a premise below, augment it by providing a response to an objection that might be posed by a reasonable objector over your shoulder. (In your augmentation, continue to agree with the evaluation already presented.)

Sample exercise. Premise: All triangles have 180 degrees. Evaluation: The premise is almost certainly true, since it is self-evident. This is just what we mean by the word triangle.

Sample answer. Add the following: It might be objected that in real life, we grant that triangles do exist even though perfect triangles don’t exist; the fact that a man-made or natural object is off imperceptibly doesn’t mean that it isn’t a triangle. This is a reasonable objection, and means I must add that the premise is only true on the charitable, and thus reasonable, assumption that it is talking about geometry and not real life.

• Premise: Taxes will continue to rise during our lifetime. Evaluation: This is probably false, since there is a rising tide of opinion that government is growing too big, taking too much of our income, and not using it responsibly. The politicians will get the message.
• Premise: James Cameron’s Titanic is one of the best movies ever made. Evaluation: This is almost certainly false. A good script is necessary for a good movie, and just about everyone agrees that the script for this movie is extremely weak.
• Premise. Large cities provide a higher quality of life than small towns. Evaluation: This is probably true. Cultural opportunities make a huge contribution to quality of life, and large cities far outweigh small towns in this regard.
• Premise: Most of the wealth created in America in this millenium has been from high technology. Evaluation: This is probably false. Lists of the wealthiest people in America are full of people who made their money in the stock market (like Warren Buffet), in retailing (like Jeff Bezos), and in entertainment (like Oprah Winfrey).

9.5.2 Thinking Backward and Thinking Ahead

As you consider your evidence, one natural strategy is to think backward—to look for what seems to have led you to believe or disbelieve the premise. Almost all of the examples provided so far have been of this sort. Why do I believe that all triangles have 180 degrees? I think back and recall that I learned it as a definition in high school geometry. Why do I not believe that all swans are white? Because I think back to my sighting of a black swan at the zoo. Other examples are easy to come by. Suppose you clarify an argument that has the following premise:

1. For any liquid, its freezing and melting temperature is the same.

Plausible though this may be, you realize that it is probably false on thinking back and recalling a magazine article you once read. You might then evaluate it in this preliminary way:

Premise 1 is probably false. Science News, which is normally a very reliable publication on matters of science, recently carried a story about the discovery of fish that live in very cold waters; their blood has a very low freezing temperature, even though, once frozen, the melting temperature is far higher.

In this way, by thinking backward you are able to appeal to a reliable authority.

But another useful strategy is to think ahead. This second strategy can take one of two forms. One way of doing this is to assume that the premise is true and see if anything obviously false follows from it; if so, that would show the premise to be false. Suppose, for example, the premise is this:

1. The meaning of any word is the thing that it picks out in the world.

This might seem superficially plausible. But you might arrive at the following evaluation:

Premise 1 is very probably false. It entails, for example, that the word unicorn has no meaning; for there are no unicorns, and thus the word picks out nothing in the world. But this is absurd—it is self-evidently false. The word unicorn is obviously meaningful, otherwise we wouldn’t know how to check and see whether there were any unicorns.

In this example, by thinking ahead you have run into a consequence that is self-evidently false; for by understanding the very meaning of the term, you understand that the word unicorn is meaningful.

Another way of doing this is to assume that the premise is false and see if anything obviously false follows from that ; if so, then that would show the premise to be true. Suppose, for example, there is a premise such as this:

4. It is sometimes morally acceptable to break the law.

Your preliminary evaluation might be as follows:

Premise 4 is very probably true. Assume it is false. This would mean that it is never morally acceptable to break the law. But this would mean that you would be morally obligated to obey the speed limit even if driving faster would save someone’s life. But this is absurd. Since this absurdity results from assuming that the premise is false, the premise is very likely not false.

These two forward-thinking strategies search for implications that are absurd, concluding that the assumption that led to the absurdity must be rejected. Because they attack the assumption indirectly, via its implications, they are known as indirect arguments . They are also known as reductio ad absurdum arguments, since they aim to reduce the assumption to absurdity.

Such arguments can be effective but should be used with care. It is always possible that the absurd implication is produced not by the falsity of your assumption about the premise, but by some other false assumption that you are implicitly making. In the first case, for example, someone might argue that the mistake doesn’t lie in the premise The meaning of any word is the thing that it picks out in the world, but in this additional assumption: The word “unicorn” picks out nothing. Perhaps there really are unicorns (and thus the word picks out unicorns). Or, safely assuming that there are no unicorns, perhaps it picks out the idea of unicorns; in that case it does pick out something, so it is meaningful. This sort of mistake—failing to blame a false secondary or implicit premise—is common enough that it long ago earned a name of its own: the fallacy of non causa pro causa (i.e., the absurdity is not caused by the cause that is set forth ).

Note that the practice of assuming there is a reasonable objector over your shoulder applies to indirect arguments as well. And you should be prepared for the possibility that your reasonable objector will accuse you of committing the fallacy of non causa pro causa. Return to the premise The meaning of any word is the thing that it picks out in the world. The evaluation, as it now stands, is as follows:

Premise 1 is very probably false. It entails, for example, that the word unicorn has no meaning because there are no unicorns, and thus the word picks out nothing in the world. But this is absurd—in fact, it is self-evidently false. The word unicorn is obviously meaningful, otherwise we wouldn’t know how to check and see whether there were any unicorns.

But it is stronger if you append the following sentences to it:

It might reasonably be objected, however, that the word unicorn does pick out something—namely the idea of unicorns (and thus, the fault would lie in the assumption that it does not pick out anything; the fault would not lie in Premise 1). But this objection cannot be right, because the objector would then have to admit that there are indeed unicorns in the world—since the objector says that unicorn means idea of unicorn, and the idea indeed exists even though unicorns do not.

Again, in this way you identify what is probably the weakest part of your defense and convince yourself (by convincing the reasonable objector over your shoulder) that your indirect argument is successful after all.

Indirect Arguments (“Thinking ahead”)

• Assume the premise is true and show that this leads to an absurd consequence. This shows the premise is false.
• Assume the premise is false and show that this leads to an absurd consequence. This shows the premise is true.

EXERCISES Chapter 9, set (i)

For each premise, provide an evaluation that uses an indirect argument. Where relevant, respond to the reasonable objector over your shoulder.

Sample exercise. No one who has broken the law should be allowed to serve on a jury.

Sample answer. This is certainly false. Assume it’s true. It would follow that juries would no longer exist, since virtually everyone has broken the law at some time (even if only by speeding or jaywalking.) It might be reasonably objected that, in practice, this wouldn’t happen, since there would have to be a way of establishing that someone broke the law before you could exclude the person from a jury. This turns out to be a weak objection, however, since one way of establishing it would be to ask them. Most people would probably admit to it if it meant getting out of jury duty.

• Some males are unmarried. (Assume it is false.)
• People can do whatever they decide they want to do. (Assume it is true.)
• To become a millionaire requires more than just intelligence. (Assume it is false.)
• The only painting that should be counted as art is painting that literally represents the world, such as portraits and landscapes. (Assume it is true.)

9.5.3 Fallacies and Truth

Sometimes false beliefs are branded as fallacies. In Aristotle to Zoos, for example, P. B. and J. S. Medawar write,

It is a popular fallacy that chewing gum regains its flavor if removed from the mouth and parked, say, under a chair. What is regained is not the flavor but the ability to taste the flavor as sensory adaptation wears off.

This is not a misuse of the term; a fallacy, recall, is an easy-to-make intellectual mistake, and there are many mistakes about truth (such as believing that chewing gum regains its flavor overnight) that are easy to make.

But although this is not a misuse of the term, it is not helpful in evaluating the premise. To say the premise Chewing gum regains its flavor overnight commits the fallacy of believing that chewing gum regains its flavor overnight is simply to say that the premise is false (note that the terms fallacy and false are closely related) and that a lot of people think it is true. It does not tell us anything about why people make the mistake, which is what it must do if it is to be useful in an evaluation. The other uses of the term fallacy that we look at in this text are generic. They tell us something about why an argument has gone wrong, regardless of the subject matter of the argument. The fallacy of equivocation, for example, can occur in any argument where the meaning of a word might shift—which is to say, in any argument. It can occur in an argument about gum (which might shift from chewing gum to the flesh under the teeth ); and—to simply reverse the word—it can occur in an argument about a mug (which might shift from a cup to a face —reaffirming the many slips ‘twixt cup and lip). When we identify such a fallacy we are saying that the argument has gone wrong, in part, because of such a shift.

Since the point of your evaluation of each premise is to defend your judgment in a way that would satisfy the reasonable objector over your shoulder, it is best to skip the unhelpful step of accusing a premise of committing a fallacy. Instead, go straight to the explanation of why you believe it to be false. No need to bother saying, for example, that the belief commits the fallacy of believing that chewing gum regains its flavor overnight. Better simply to say that the premise is almost certainly false, and that the reasonable objection that our experiences support the premise—since the gum always does taste better the next morning—is explained by a change that occurs in our sense of taste (due to sensory adaptation) and not by any change in the gum. [7]

9.6 Summary of Chapter Nine

Although people often reasonably disagree about the truth of a premise, that does not mean that what is true for one person may be false for another. Truth has to do with whether a belief fits with the world. It is not relative to the believer. This is consistent with the law of noncontradiction, which says that a statement cannot be both true and false, and with the closely related law of the excluded middle, which says that it must be either true or false. These two laws are valuable practical guidelines in thinking about truth.

Evidence, however, is relative to the believer; so evaluations of premises must be made in shades of gray. The best you can hope for is to evaluate a premise’s epistemic probability—that is, how strong your evidence is for its truth or falsity—using expressions such as probably true and probably false. One alternative notion of probability, subjective probability, is simply a measure of how much confidence you have in the truth of a belief; you should attempt to match your subjective with your epistemic probability.

Some of your evidence will be found in other beliefs of yours—that is, it will be inferential. But some of it—self-evidence and experiential evidence —will be noninferential. Self-evidence is what you have when the premise itself, by virtue of the very meanings of the words, provides you with all the evidence you need to make a reasonable judgment. Experiential evidence is what is provided by the observations that you make with any of your five senses. One important category of experiential evidence is reports that you hear or read from authorities who have special access to information or special abilities to evaluate it.

For any experiential evidence, it is important to be aware of circumstances that might undermine its reliability. It is also important that you require more evidence whenever the prior probability of your belief is extremely low.

In preparing your evaluation, ask yourself what you really think, both about the premise and about your evidence for or against it. You might do this by thinking backward about how you arrived at your belief or by thinking ahead to see whether you can produce an indirect argument. As you do so, keep in mind the intellectual virtues of honesty, critical reflection, and empirical inquiry. Then present your evaluation for each premise by stating your belief, your evidence for that belief, and, if there is a reasonable objection, a brief response to it as though there is a reasonable objector over your shoulder.

9.7 Guidelines for Chapter Nine

• For practical purposes, assume that no statement is both true and false and that every statement is either true or false.
• If it looks as though the truth-value of a statement will be different depending on who expresses it, it is usually because the statement is referentially ambiguous. Look for the ambiguous term, which may be implicit, and eliminate the ambiguity before evaluating its truth.
• The rare statements that appear to violate the two laws of truth, yet do not merely suffer from a referential ambiguity, should be evaluated as can’t decide, with an explanation.
• Evaluate premises according to their epistemic probability—that is, according to how strong your evidence is for their truth or falsity—using expressions such as probably true and probably false.
• Aim to match your subjective and epistemic probabilities—that is, to have the amount of confidence that is warranted by the evidence.
• If a premise can charitably be seen to be almost certainly true or false solely on the basis of your understanding of the meanings of the words within it, evaluate it as self-evidently true or false.
• Stipulative definitions, in which the arguer offers a revised or new definition for a term, may be considered self-evidently true. But be sure that arguments with such definitions do not commit the fallacy of equivocation.
• Observations made by any of your five senses can provide powerful evidence in evaluating your beliefs. Be on the alert, however, for circumstances that can weaken them.
• Reports of authorities can provide powerful evidence in evaluating beliefs. Be on the alert, however, for circumstances that can weaken them.
• For each premise, state your judgment, your defense of the judgment, and, where relevant, a brief response to any objections that might be posed by a “reasonable objector over your shoulder.”
• Ask yourself what you really think about the premise and your evidence for or against it. You might do this by thinking backward about how you arrived at your belief or by thinking ahead to see whether you can produce an indirect argument (though you should avoid the fallacy of non causa pro causa in doing so). As you do so, keep in mind the reasonable objector over your shoulder.
• Instead of accusing any premise of committing a fallacy, focus on explaining why you believe the premise to be false.

9.8 Glossary for Chapter Nine

Authority —someone who is presumed to be in a better position than you to know the truth about a statement. This superiority may be due to either special ability (as with a scientist or expert) or special access (as with an eyewitness or a journalist).

Epistemic —having to do with knowledge.

Epistemic probability —the likelihood that a statement is true, given the total evidence available to you—that is, given all of your background beliefs and experiences. This is the notion of probability that should be used in your evaluation of premises. To say that a premise is probably true is, then, just to say that you have fairly good evidence for its truth.

Experiential evidence —evidence provided by sense experience—that is, that which is seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. It is one kind of noninferential evidence.

Fallacy of non causa pro causa —the mistake in an indirect argument of relying on a secondary assumption—often implicit—that is false, so that it is really the secondary assumption that should be blamed, not the assumption blamed by the arguer. (It literally means that the absurdity is not caused by the cause that is set forth. )

Frequency probability —the likelihood that a specific thing has a property, based strictly on the frequency with which all things of that sort have the property.

Indirect argument —an argument that shows a statement is false by showing that it leads to an absurd consequence. This is sometimes, alternatively, used to show that the negation of the statement is true (which amounts to the same thing as showing that the belief itself is false). Sometimes also called a reductio ad absurdum argument or, for short, reductio.

Inferential evidence —beliefs that are appealed to in support of another belief (which is inferred from them).

Law of the excluded middle —every statement is either true or false. It follows from this that there is no middle ground between the true and the false.

Law of noncontradiction —no statement is both true and false. It follows from this that truth is objective and absolute—there cannot be any statement, for example, that is true for you but false for me.

Noninferential evidence —things other than beliefs that are appealed to in support of a belief. This includes self-evidence and experiential evidence.

Prior probability —the epistemic probability of a belief independent of (i.e., prior to) a specified piece of evidence. When considering, for example, the prior probability of something you heard, its prior probability is simply how probable it would be if you had not heard it.

Self-evidence —evidence that comes from understanding the very meanings of the words themselves in a statement. Statements that are self-evidently true or false can be seen to be true or false largely by virtue of understanding the words of the statement. Philosophers sometimes refer to these statements as analytic a priori statements; they are also sometimes described as statements that are seen to be true or false by definition.

Stipulative definition —a nonstandard definition for a term, decreed by a speaker or writer for some specific use.

Subjective probability —the degree of confidence you have that a given statement is true. It is entirely relative to the believer; there is no fact of the matter over and above the believer’s level of confidence.

Truth-values —evaluations, like true and false, which can be given of how well a statement fits with the world.

• There is one exception. Some arguments have “throwaway premises” that should not be included in the clarification because they make no logical contribution to the argument. If one of these is false, it is not in the clarification so it doesn’t make the argument unsound (so, excluding it is an application of the principle of charity). Suppose someone argues as follows: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; Socrates is fat; and thus Socrates is mortal. You would not include Socrates is fat in your clarification, so it doesn’t matter whether it is true or false. ↵
• Poll conducted by the Barna Research Group. It does not say whether those polled believed it to be absolutely true that there is no absolute truth. ↵
• Some theorists have tried to make subjective probability more scientific—to move it from the vague and hidden realm of inner moods to the measurable realm of external behavior—by spelling it out in terms of betting behavior. Consider these two statements: Sitting Pretty will win the third race. Harvest Moon will win the third race. The subjective probability of the first statement would be higher than the second if and only if I were willing either to bet more money or to take longer odds on Sitting Pretty. The same principle would apply to any belief (say, It is wrong to tell a lie ). This approach ultimately does not completely work, for there are many reasons that my betting behavior might not reflect my actual confidence level. For example, if I strongly believed it was wrong to bet, then I would probably not bet any money on the statement It is wrong to bet, even though it would have a high subjective probability! But is does nicely illustrate how it is that our subjective probability has much more influence on behavior than does epistemic probability—and, thus, the importance of matching them. ↵
• Frequency statements used for this purpose are sometimes called base rates . ↵
• Philosophers sometimes refer to such statements as analytic a priori. ↵
• It is also possible to have a self-evidently false pair of premises. If two premises are contradictory, you know that at least one of them is false even if you don’t know which. ↵
• Philosophers have not been reluctant to brand certain beliefs as fallacies. G. E. Moore, to cite a famous example, coined the term naturalistic fallacy to describe the belief that moral properties (such as goodness ) are ultimately nothing more than certain natural properties of the world (such as the amount of pleasure the “good” thing provides). But, as you might expect, other philosophers think this is no mistake at all, and thus no fallacy. As in other cases, it would be more helpful to focus on why he thinks the belief is false rather than to be told that it is a fallacy. ↵

No statement is both true and false. It follows from this that truth is objective and absolute—there cannot be any statement, for example, that is true for you but false for me.

Every statement is either true or false. It follows from this that there is no middle ground between the true and the false.

Evaluations, like true and false, which can be given of how well a statement fits with the world.

The likelihood that a statement is true, given the total evidence available to you—that is, given all of your background beliefs and experiences. This is the notion of probability that should be used in your evaluation of premises. To say that a premise is probably true is, then, just to say that you have fairly good evidence for its truth.

Having to do with knowledge.

The degree of confidence you have that a given statement is true. It is entirely relative to the believer; there is no fact of the matter over and above the believer’s level of confidence.

The likelihood that a specific thing has a property, based strictly on the frequency with which all things of that sort have the property.

Beliefs that are appealed to in support of another belief (which is inferred from them).

Things other than beliefs that are appealed to in support of a belief. This includes self-evidence and experiential evidence.

Evidence that comes from understanding the very meanings of the words themselves in a statement. Statements that are self-evidently true or false can be seen to be true or false largely by virtue of understanding the words of the statement. Philosophers sometimes refer to these statements as analytic a priori statements; they are also sometimes described as statements that are seen to be true or false by definition.

A nonstandard definition for a term, decreed by a speaker or writer for some specific use.

Evidence provided by sense experience—that is, that which is seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. It is one kind of noninferential evidence.

The epistemic probability of a belief independent of (i.e., prior to) a specified piece of evidence. When considering, for example, the prior probability of something you heard, its prior probability is simply how probable it would be if you had not heard it.

Someone who is presumed to be in a better position than you to know the truth about a statement. This superiority may be due to either special ability (as with a scientist or expert) or special access (as with an eyewitness or a journalist).

An argument that shows a statement is false by showing that it leads to an absurd consequence. This is sometimes, alternatively, used to show that the negation of the statement is true (which amounts to the same thing as showing that the belief itself is false). Sometimes also called a reductio ad absurdum argument or, for short, reductio.

The mistake in an indirect argument of relying on a secondary assumption—often implicit—that is false, so that it is really the secondary assumption that should be blamed, not the assumption blamed by the arguer. (It literally means that the absurdity is not caused by the cause that is set forth. )

A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues Copyright © 2020 by David Carl Wilson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Marketing Research: Planning, Process, Practice

Student resources, multiple choice quizzes.

Try these quizzes to test your understanding.

1. Research analysis is the last critical step in the research process.

2. The final research report where a discussion of findings and limitations is presented is the easiest part for a researcher.

3. Two different researchers may be presented with the same data analysis results and discuss them differently, uncovering alternative insights linked to the research question, each using a different lens.

4. A reliable research is essentially valid, but a valid research is not necessarily reliable.

5. A valid research refers to the degree to which it accurately measures what it intends to measure.

6. Keeping an envisioned original contribution to knowledge in mind, the research report in appearance and content should highlights the outcomes and link back to objectives.

7. A good conclusion chapter should (please select ALL answers that apply) ______.

• have a structure that brings back what the research set out to do
• discuss the researcher’s own assumptions and ideas about the topic under study
• makes logical links between the various parts of the arguments starting from the hypotheses

Answer: A & C 

8. Research implications presented in a study must be either theoretical only or practical only.

9. Good researchers should aim for a perfect research, with no limitations or restrictions.

10. Examples of research limitations include (please select the answer that DOESN’T apply) ______.

• access to the population of interest
• the study’s coverage of possible contributory factors
• the researcher’s poor analysis skills
• the sampling technique used

11. A good structure outlining an effective research report starts with the ‘Analysis and Results’ section.

12. A good research study can just focus on its key outcomes without highlighting areas for future research.

13. If some of the research questions were not answered or some research objectives could not be achieved, then the final report must explain and reflect on the reasons why this is the case.

14. The importance of being critically reflective in presenting the future research section is that it allows for the advent of new arenas of thought that you or other researchers can develop on.

15. A weak future research section and weak discussion of the research limitations does not make the study fragile/lacking rigour and depth.

16. Once a research specifies a study’s limitations, this discredits all research efforts exerted in it.

17. Reporting research is about presenting the research journey through clear and evidence-based arguments of design, process and outcomes, not just describing it.

18. It is not important to present in every research report the ethical considerations that were anticipated or have ascended in the study.

19. Verbal and visual presentations of research aid in the dissemination of its outcomes and value, and allow for its strengths to be revealed.

20. In oral presentations, the audience expects you as a researcher to present your work in full detail even if they will ask further questions in the follow-up discussion.

• Chapter Resources
• Study Resources
• Supplements

Chapter 3 True/False Questions The Starting Point: Asking Questions

Challenge yourself with these true/false questions. Click on your choice to see if you are correct.

The starting point in any research project is to formulate a question. ( True / False )

The researcher's own personal interests and observations may be a valuable source of questions. ( True / False )

Theories of other researchers are not a particularly good source of research questions. ( True / False )

Successful research often raises new questions, even while it answers old questions. ( True / False )

Research reports can be located quickly by use of an abstract system such as PsycINFO. ( True / False )

Theories and research can raise new questions in two ways: heuristically, and systematically. ( True / False )

Research designed to find solutions to practical problems is referred to as basic research. ( True / False )

Basic research findings often provide the basis for later applied research. ( True / False )

A variable is defined as any set of events that may have different values. ( True / False )

All variables can be manipulated by the researcher. ( True / False )

An initially vague or general idea is first refined into a research hypothesis and then further refined into a statement of the problem. ( True / False )

For low-constraint research, it is especially critical to refine the statement of the problem as much as possible. ( True / False )

Behavioral variables refer to any stimulus in the environment that might affect our behavior. ( True / False )

Organismic variables are always directly observable characteristics of the participant, such as height or weight. ( True / False )

Stimulus variables may be either manipulated by the experimenter or an already existing part of the environment in which the research is being conducted. ( True / False )

Dependent variables are most likely to be behavioral variables. ( True / False )

A dependent variable is hypothesized to change as a result of the influence of an independent variable. ( True / False )

Organismic variables are the largest category of manipulated independent variables. ( True / False )

At the experimental level of constraint, nonmanipulated independent variables are used. ( True / False )

It is possible for a variable to be an organismic variable in one study, a stimulus variable in a different study, and a behavioral variable in yet another study. ( True / False )

Validity refers to how well a study, procedure, or measure does what it is supposed to do. ( True / False )

Validity is threatened whenever extraneous variables are controlled. ( True / False )

High-constraint research designs typically provide more effective control over extraneous variables. ( True / False )

In some experiments, control procedures should not be used. ( True / False )

It is expected that researchers will follow appropriate ethical guidelines. ( True / False )

A principle of ethical research is that it should be the responsibility of the researcher to decide if a participant will participate or not. ( True / False )

Informed consent is obtained when the Institutional Review Board approves a research project. ( True / False )

If a project has been fully approved by an Institutional Review Board, the researcher need no longer be concerned with the ethical appropriateness of the research. ( True / False )

In addition to ethical guidelines for research with human participants, there are published guidelines for research with animals. ( True / False )

One of the easiest areas in which to substitute computer simulations for live animals is in the area of behavioral studies. ( True / False )

The diversity of participants in research is, among other things, an ethical issue. ( True / False )

All independent variables are manipulated by the researcher. ( True / False )

The researcher may choose to manipulate the dependent variable in order to see what effect it has on the independent variable. ( True / False )

In psychology, the largest category of nonmanipulated independent variables is the organismic or subject variable. ( True / False )

Causal relationships are difficult to study if the independent variable in the study is manipulated by the researcher. ( True / False )

The age of the participant can be a manipulated independent variable. ( True / False )

The level of a participant's anxiety could be any of the following: a manipulated independent variable, a nonmanipulated independent variable, or a dependent variable. ( True / False )

APA Style Tutorial | Authors | Chapter Resources | Copyright | Errata | Glossary Help | History | Home | Index | Instructor's Resources | Internet Links | Library Research Manual Computation of Statistics | New Material | Random Number Program Research Design Checklist | Research Examples | Site Map | SPSS for Windows | Statistical Concepts Statistical Flowcharts | Statistical Tables | Study Guide/Lab manual | Tutorials

Copyright © 2020 Graziano & Raulin. All Rights Reserved.