a representation of some aspect of the natural world * What are some reasons that scientists use models? to gain an aspect of the natural world, different models about the same subject may result in different results that my support or refute a claim.. Scientists need to know the limitations of the models, so they don't have flawed observations * What are some examples of scientific models? globe, map, * Why might a scientist need to use several different models of the same aspect of the natural world? Why isn’t one model enough? Because no model represents all aspects of the natural world perfectly * Why is it important for a scientist to understand the limitations of the models they use?
In simple terms , a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. Can not be changed. Theories have a few similarities to a scientific law, but is the opposite when it comes to the rest. Theories are a body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding a major phenomena in nature (Moore, 1984). A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al.,1990).
Experiment Research and The Scientific Method There is a place for accepting hypotheses based on the results of repetition in scientific research. This approach is referred to as the inductive method. Numerous observations should be made over a period of time. After the same cause-and-effect process is observed repeatedly, a hypothesis can be accepted as true inductively. No formal testable hypothesis was set up, but there is enough experiential evidence to accept that an outcome will predictably result from a specific action.
While Ethical Naturalists believe it holds great importance as it can convey facts and help us to understand ethical theories, there are those who strongly disagree with this. For example Intuitionists, such as Moore, believe that our intuition is more useful when wanting to know how to act morally than knowing the definitions of ethical terms. Although Non-Cognitive theories disagree with the factual content of ethical statements, it is clear that they still see some significance in ethical language. However rather than seeing it as facts, they accept that morality is subjective and suggest that the importance of ethical language is provided by the emotions conveyed in the phrases used. Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful.
Moran quotes individuals such as Stephen J. Gould who is a scientist and paleontologist. Gould states that “In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.”” This is in congruence with Moran’s thesis that evolution is a fact and the mechanism of evolution is the only theory left. He repeatedly shows that there is too much evidence proving that evolution has and still is occurring to dispute it. Geneticist and evolutionist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, again confirms this in a quote used in the author’s essay. He says that “evolution (…) can only be doubted by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to the evidence.
Many scientists believe that science and religion should not entwine. Scientists often keep religion separate from their work. Humans like you and I, turn to religion for an answer, for hope. Like Goodall, I believe science and religion are not different from each other but simply the way a person’s views the world as. Whether God created this universe or if they is a scientific answer to the creation of this universe, it is not as important than our future.
4.5. does the fact that there is supporting material from experience for a statement make that statement reliable? 4.6. do all scientific hypothesis and theories arise from experiences( theory of relativity, double helix structure of DNA) 4. These questions suggest that the standard image of science is largely discredited and is replaced by new views...(popper, Kuhn) The contribution of Karl
While on the surface these worldviews conflict, this paper argues that there is a role for both. The Scientific Method Distinguishing science from other ways of seeking knowledge requires focusing on the scientific method. Fundamentally, this method involves a “merger of rationalism and empiricism” as scientists collect data and test hypothesis using the data (Jackson, 2009). Generally speaking, the scientific method consists of six steps, the first of which is to identify an empirically solvable problem (Jackson, 2009). Second, conduct a literature review to gain better understanding of past research on the topic.
I would like to believe we are the followers of the God’s path. But when I read the article of Robert F. Morse I felt like his assumption is also making sense at some point. In this world of modern technology we have gotten to the stage in which cloning is being done with no consideration to moral ethics. I do not believe that man with all his intelligence should play God. As Tim LaHaye explains secular humanism is based on five major tenets: “atheism, evolution, amorality, human autonomy, and globalism.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).