Defining “Science” In order to label a certain theory or philosophy as “scientific”, certain criteria must be met to deem it so. To call a subject a science based solely on the fact that it involves observation would be absurd, however there are those who believe in “sciences” that lie entirely on this principle of observation. In order to distinguish the difference between a pseudo-science and science, there must be specific guidelines that determine the difference between the two. The difficulty in determining whether a discipline is a science or non-science is known as the problem of demarcation, and in solving this problem of demarcation lies the framework for labeling a study a science – the criterion of demarcation, as made famous by Karl Popper. This demarcating of science is a definite way to distinguish the difference between true science and pseudo-science.
What does Paul Feyerabend’s notion of “Epistemological Anarchism” mean? Evaluate this in relation to his critique of Kuhn’s Paradigms. While Emphasizing the subjective side of science, Kuhn claimed that operating within science means existing within the restrictive confines of the dominant paradigm, which attempts to limit particular questions that can be asked, how these are asked, and how their answers are formulated into viable scientific facts that are accepted by fellow scientists. This paradigm, in turn may actually obstruct the progress of science by nature of being untranslatable to other paradigms and impede rational argument. Kuhn states that a scientist’s switch between one paradigm to the next is similar to a “gestalt switch” where neural programming is required rather than argument and persuasion.
This proceeds with the question; what advancements are moral? I believe that any science, innovation, study, or sort of exploration must be morally just, intended to better our understanding of the world, and be created with intention to improve any part of society. For example, the formation of the first rocket ship was monumental in bringing exploration to the new frontier and impacted our society for the better. Therefore this invention would be considered moral and for positive advancement. On the contrary, the scientific creation of something such as the nuclear bomb could be considered scientific expansion for the worse as it can provide horrible outcomes and is lethal if put in the wrong hands; thus classified as
This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect. In other words, induction involves moving “from premises about objects we have examined to a conclusion about objects we haven’t examined” (Okasha, 2002, p. 19). From this statement it is apparent how induction can be a problem in science due to it’s potential to lead to a false conclusion. Another problem with induction in scientific reasoning is that induction only generalizes what has already occurred. It classifies patterns that have already happened and deems them to be true even though future occurrences may be uncertain.
What is it about theories in the natural and human science that make them convincing? A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain an idea or occurrence. In the fields of natural and human science, there are many theories that have been declared by experts, in order to explain random occurrences and patterns. Any expert can publish a theory on a specific concept, but in order for that theory to be accepted by society first. This is where the convincing element of a thesis and theory should be very persuasive and eminent.
Butterfield (1965) author of “The Origins of Modern Science” persuasively argues that what materialized in the 16th century and subsequent years was not necessarily the results of new information, but transformed minds. Helweg, (1997) explains that other cultures have made significant findings to the human race; i.e., the Hindus introduction of zero and the Muslins contributions to algebra. Christian also contributed an exclusive set of expectations required by science. Many Christians were not only scientist but researchers that validated that we existed in a methodical universe. They understood that revealing such knowledge would prove powerful in evidence that such a universe was shaped by a methodical
Naturalism is the philosophy which tries to apply scientific reasoning to the world. In literature it extended the tradition of realism, aiming at an even more faithful, non-selective representation of reality, a veritable “slice of life,” presented without moral judgment. Naturalistic writers use a version of scientific method and apply it to their writing. The study of human beings focuses on their instinct, passion and the ways in which their lives are governed by forces of heredity and environment. The "monster within", "man against nature" or "man against himself" are all conflicts that surface in a naturalistic novel.
Before talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, it is necessary to answer questions such as what is science and what is religion? The science is a tool by means of which it is possible to receive true knowledge of the world. How there was a Universe or how life has appeared? Very deep and difficult question. While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them.
Historical trends in psychological enquiry, in addition to fundamental shifts in Psychology’s subject base has led to the use of the scientific method. Ultimately, the aim of the scientific method is to test hypothesis by falsifying them. It is impossible to prove a hypothesis correct but we are able to prove a hypothesis wrong. Karl Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition, that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific, and if not, then it is unscientific. Empirical data is information that is gained through a direct observation or an experiment rather than a reasoned argument or unfounded belief.
In this respect, religion and its associated values may be seen as the ‘legs’ keeping science ‘upright’ and ethical, hence Einstein’s statement. Science, logic and reason have the ability to empower and benefit mankind immensely, but such power in the hands of someone without empathy would be dangerous and hazardous for society. Due to the dominance of religion in society during the advent of modern science, religious teachings and doctrines have had a significant role to play in shaping early scientific practices and ethics. The Hippocratic Oath is testament to the influence religion had over early medical practices, for example. The Hippocratic Oath, which is among the oldest and most popular medical code still in use today, originally required medical physicians to swear upon Hellenistic pagan deities such as Asclepius, the Greek god of medicine, to maintain certain morals and principles as they practiced medicine (Rice University 2014).