That which is ‘scientific’ is often viewed as fact; phenomena in the world that is definite, and unchanging. However, through analysis of what science really is and what is strives to achieve, perhaps it is fair to say that the realm of science is just as indefinite and equivocal as the wildest of myths and theories. Experiments and observational studies can be examined to determine if they are in fact scientific by considering a variety of scientific views and theories, and applying them to both the process and the findings. Two consecutive meta-analytic reviews of psychological experiments on aggression in men vs. aggression in women will be used to explore the nature of what is scientific. Firstly they will be broken down using Giere’s six-step strategy, and then compared and contrasted with an array of different approaches to science; namely logical empiricism, and the philosophies of science of both Popper and Kuhn.
In the first experiment analysis, ‘Gender and Aggressive Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Social Psychological Literature’ (1986) by Alice H. Eagly and Valerie J. Steffen, a computer-based information search was conducted of a variety of data bases from 1963 to 1983 for studies comparing aggression in men and women. It was predicted that the overall findings of this meta-analysis would conclude that men are generally more aggressive than women. This prediction was supported when the results found that consistently, men delivered as well as received more aggression than women. The sex difference was more pronounced for physical than psychological aggression. Women reported greater anxiety and guilt as a result of aggression, as well as more concern about the danger their aggression might bring to themselves and others. These results have been interpreted as emphasising types of aggression including competitiveness and violence that are learned as aspects of gender roles and other social roles. The second meta-analysis studied, ‘Gender...