Consequently, you could write something like “the result disproves the theory that x” or “the result is in line with the theory that y." Researchers tend to avoid using the term “evidence” unless the coherent situation is genuinely indisputable.
Similarly, an inadequate or methodologically inaccurate trial cannot demonstrate (or reject) a hypothesis (apart from the clumsiness of those who conducted it).
- Being analytical amounts to attentively scrutinizing the veridical foundation of an assertion. Merely disputing research (for instance, for not studying more than one species, for using a specific approach, or for not introducing enough statistical data) doesn’t indicate an analytical approach. Science involves distinguishing between the essential and inconsequential agents. It’s better not to say anything, rather than disproving incidentals. Being over-analytical regarding insignificant factors is just as inadequate (perhaps even more inadequate) than being unanalytical.
So, for example, making use of a method that is imperfect, or doesn’t have enough conditions, or doesn’t study more than one species, do not constitute well-grounded reasons of being critical. One could mention such ideas when taking into account the outcomes of research. However, they do not constitute “weak points." Weak points comprise undirected analytical aspects, inadequately-explained techniques, erroneous statistical data or disregarded theories that imply that the findings of the study are imprecise. Pondering on substitute theories that may account for the scrutinized information in a distinct manner represents one of the most imaginative elements of psychological studies. Furthermore, this approach can be both demanding and entertaining.
- Be succinct. Steer clear of figurative phrases like “it is considered" or “researchers think” or “the unanimous opinion appears to be …” (which is probably an even worse wording, as science doesn’t rely on popularity!). Instead, you could write something like “Johnson (2010) asserted (especially if you are in disagreement with their opinion)/demonstrated (especially if you agree)/implied (in case of theories) that x”. In case you are conveying a personal idea, simply write “I propose” (avoid formulations like “the author proposes”).
Use a straightforward and coherent (steer clear of long phrases) phrase organization. Last but not least, don’t use conversational or unofficial phrases like “lots of," “find the right choice," or overstatements (“this outstanding and fascinating research."
- Avoid using scientific words that a general specialist would not be familiar with without explaining them. We’re talking about words like “metarepresentation," “intentionality” or “phoneme," which have specialized meanings that must be succinctly defined.
- Latin denominations of species must be written in italics. While the subfamily must always be written in capital letters, the species must not be capitalized (Homo sapiens, Canis familiaris). In case you want to write about an unidentified species, write Naja sp. (singular). On the other hand, when you wish to approach numerous species of the same family, you should write Naja spp. (plural). These guidelines apply to the entirety of species.
However, when mentioning universal denominations of animals, you don’t need to use capital letters, except for the situation in which the name also includes a location (we write “Alaskan brown bears," rather than “alaskan brown bears”).
- Citations: The entirety of the sources on which you base your arguments must get proper references. Make sure you cite all of the materials you’ve used in the bibliography section, which you need to add on the last page of your essay. Furthermore, in-text references must include the name(s) of the writer(s), as well as the issuing date. For instance: Johnson and Andrews (2004); Anderson, Walters, and Griffin (2011). In case the material you want to refer to was written by more than two people, you can use a shortened form when you are required to cite it again. For instance: Anderson et al (2011). If your source has at least six writers, you ought to use “et al” even in the initial reference.