Use of Empirical Research
While it is not blatantly harmful to collect some erroneous information in an individua's everyday life, it can be a major problem if we base policy or strategy on false information. Thus, we try to base important decisions on experience. And experience incorporates empirical research, that is, information based on observations using scientific evidence. In other words, if we want to really know the extent of serious crime in a community, we collect information about it in a logical scientific fashion.
This use of empirical research is sometimes very enlightening and can lead to significant changes being made in standard operating procedures, as happened in policing after the Kansas City Experiment previously discussed. However, accumulating knowledge via scientific examination is typically a time-consuming process, where initial results must be repeatedly tested to ensure validity. Ignoring this rule of science can have unintended (or even harmful) results, as was the case when policymakers used results from the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment as the sole basis for reforming arrest procedures for domestic violence incidents in many U.S. states. Later tests of the findings from the Minneapolis study demonstrated that the original findings could not be universally applied. Thus, we see how experiential reality can demonstrate how even popularly held ideas may be invalid.
Perhaps the most important aspect of empirical research is the use of a scientific model. We will be looking at the Traditional Model of Science. One of its main purposes is to help alleviate the common errors humans make in acquiring and evaluating information in general. What follows is a listing and brief discussion of eight of the most commons errors in native human inquiry. If information is gathered in a manner that helps to eliminate these common errors (namely through the scientific method), then that information already has more validity than information which has not been tested in this way.