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.
In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
She then plans and conducts a research project that is capable of supporting or refuting her hypothesis. If she is able to support the hypothesis, she can follow up with more research to explore further. Finally, she will seek to publicize her research findings at a scientific conference and/or submit a publication to a scientific journal. Not only will she be publicly credited with the new information, but she will make her findings available for other scientists to test, critique, and use in further research on the topic. Thus, the cycle of information continues with past research informing new research efforts.
Science will continue to surprise us with what it discovers and creates; then it will astound us by devising new methods to surprises us. At the core of science's self-modification is technology. New tools enable new structures of knowledge and new ways of discovery. The achievement of science is to know new things; the evolution of science is to know them in new ways. What evolves is less the body of what we know and more the nature of our knowing.
This principle declares that in order for a hypothesis to be scientific, a basic requirement is that it is falsifiable. If it cannot be refuted, it is not a scientific claim. According to Popper, by discarding falsified knowledge claims, it allows the scientific understanding of the world to grow as scientific knowledge is cumulative; it enables scientists to build on the achievements of previous scientists that will develop a greater understanding of the world. However, even though previous achievements of scientists have been approved by the scientific community, there is always another scientist who will disprove previous theories e.g. the Catholic Church led people to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth until Copernicus disproved this.
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.
In the beginning, the guy has an artificial brain that he feels is disconnecting. He relates this to himself. He starts by saying he can feel it too, he feels as if something in his brain has changed. He knows his mind isn't working as well as it used to. When Carr draws his attention to the assumption of Larry Page, he is unsettled by his statement that we'd all be better off with artificial intelligence.
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.
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.