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. Paul Feyerabend also outlined science as a discipline harmed by a dogmatic acceptance of dominant methodological frameworks. Feyerabend argued that Kuhn’s paradigm model had painted too simple of a picture of science and he therefore proposed the idea that there should be no specific method in which to ensure the objectivity of science. He believes both logical and illogical ideas may be allowed to progress in science and therefore science is better served when we accept “Epistemological anarchism” as opposed to Kuhn “law and order science.” For this essay I will compare and contrast Kuhn and Feyerabend’s models as they pertain to the rhetoric of science. Feyerebend gives rhetoric and argument a function in the sphere of science and nowhere is this made clearer than in Kuhn and Feyerabend’s respective disagreements on the issue of Incommensurability which is denoted as the difficulty to determine which theory is more accurate than the other.
This demarcating of science is a definite way to distinguish the difference between true science and pseudo-science. Before diving into the details of the criterion of demarcation, it is crucial to first understand the significance of demarcating science. In the simplest of reasoning, science is a study based on factuality (it is important to point out that scientific conclusions are however not based on absolute certainty, something I will touch on later). There is a specific process and order in which scientific experiments are conducted, the scientific method, and conclusions are gathered based on very tedious and detail-oriented procedures. That is one of the main reasons why that which is labeled a “science” has a certain level of credibility attached to it.
In the Natural Sciences, a strong and accepted theory must contain solid evidence and background information to support the theory, meaning that a strong concept can be falsified. Thus providing with the question: if the Natural Sciences that involve sense perception and “seeing it to
Scientific reasoning is the process, which provides evidence for scientific theory. Induction is common throughout scientific reasoning since scientists’ use inductive reasoning whenever a limited data is used to form more general conclusions (Okasha, 2002). Induction is used to decide whether claims about the world are justified. Inductive reasoning is prevalent throughout science since it is common to have a sample size that does not include all of the possible test subjects needed for the study. This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect.
Theories in Natural science are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena. They must be empirically testable or lead to retro dictions that are testable. This is extensively know as the scientific method. The scientific method is one reason is that we put our confidence in scientists. To yield and to develop their theories and conclusions.
It is clear that the physical Universe, including life on Earth, is an evolutionary process. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is but just one theory as to how this process occurred with regard to the evolution of 'life' on this planet and is considered by most educated humans to be a self-evident fact, yet rather surprisingly careful scrutiny reveals a dearth of empirical scientific evidence to support it. If there were ever a case of "never letting the truth get in the way of a good story" then this would appear to be such a case. The following essay outlines the manifest shortcomings associated with Darwin's Theory of Evolution and is written to promote thought and discussion about this issue. DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION postulates that 'life' 2 on Earth arose from non-living matter entirely by way of some unknown, 'unconscious', mechanistic, natural process on a pre-biotic earth and then proceeded to evolve into more complex life forms almost exclusively by way of a random mutation and natural selection process, 3 and all occurring without the involvement of an over lighting consciousness or 'creator'.
Theories and explanation - Ontology and epistemology We cannot talk about knowledge and how we know without first tackling our belief(s) about the nature of reality. The belief(s) about the nature of reality is the domain of ontology. Oxford dictionary of sociology explains ontology as “any way of understanding the world, or some part of it, must make assumptions (which may be implicit or explicit) about what kinds of things do or can exist in that domain, and what might be their conditions of existence, relations of dependency, and so on. Such an inventory of kinds of being and their relations is an ontology” (1998:465). Particularly striking in this conception is the notion of inventory, which suggests multiple ontologies and the need to collate.
Science also believes that humans were not around at the beginning of life, but that they later evolved from various animals after adapting adaptations to help better suit them to the environment. Darwin’s concept of “survival of the fittest” comes in to play with that belief that those who have adapted to the changes around them will have the best chance to survive. The concept of evolution is often a topic of great controversy, especially in the public school system. Many religious enthusiasts do not want their children being taught that they are decedents of monkeys or other creatures, rather than of the first humans, Adam and Eve, that were created by God. As evolution is part of science, and science is part of the school system, the compromise is often that instructors are not allowed to teach evolution if they try to preach it is the truth and that religious views are invalid.
Dualism has largely fallen out of favour with most neuroscientists and Talvitie (2009) himself is clearly a monist. At the same time, whilst there is consensus that mind or consciousness emerges from neurophysiological processes, there remains a lack of clarity as to how this is achieved. Talvitie (2009, p 50) goes so far as to make the point that cognitive science has little doubt that unconscious matters determine our behaviour. Rather, it is the role and
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. Science includes the selection and analysis of the facts with highly sophisticated methods. Currently, this topic is very relevant, and about science and religion there are enough different debates, disputes. It is preferred not to separate them, because science and religion do