Analysis of Sarah Madsen Hardy’s Critical Essay “Bloodchild” In her critical essay “Bloodchild”, Sarah Madsen Hardy explores the unusual power dynamics between human Terrans and alien species called Talics. Hardy analyzes Octavia butler’s story “Bloodchild” and Butler’s afterword to the story, in order to help the readers understand, what the author intends to convey in her story. The main idea of Hardy’s essay is to rebut common misconception, suggesting that the exploitation is not the main theme of the story. She argues that although the way how Talics deprive humans of their humanity and reduce them to a function may seem like the story about slavery; it is an intimate relationship between Gan and T’Gatoi that complicates this theory. Her analysis suggests that it is the knowledge and acceptance of otherness what helps the relationship between two different races achieve new evolutionary level of social and biological symbiosis.
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.
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 misunderstanding of evolution can cause people to dismiss the whole theory and believe in creationism or intelligent design. Creationism is the belief that the world was created by God as stated in Genesis, the first book of
Are we programmed to care primarily for self, relatives and survival or to sacrifice for the strength of survival of our “group?” This question can be dated back to as early as Charles Darwin, August Comte and Richard Dawkins. Grossman adds that Richard Dawkins believed that people of evolution are the selfish ones and that altruism must be taught. This is saying that we as humans are born into a word of greed and deceit, but must learn to share and unite with others. Although both sides are argued throughout the article, it is not known which side is correct and the question will still continue to be a subject of numerous scientists and psychologists over the
History of scientific method We consider the scientific contemplation of nature and poetry as two complementary forms of observation, with which it is said that both are justified, each on its own, but one should not be confused with the other. -----Niels Bohr. The man from the beginning has remained interested in the discovery of things but even more logical explanation of all of them to the point of what we now understand as 'science'. All science, is the product of knowledge that have changed over the years, from ancient times until today. These constant changes are the result of ideologies of great scientists and philosophers who have contributed their very particular perspective, bringing these claims to a set of different points of view in which specific criteria are spelled out.
Allele a started off being the more dominant gene causing the bird to favor oak trees for nesting, and allele b preferred pine trees for nesting. The alleles are the genes that prescribed the tendency to choose oak or pine trees (Wilson). The way organism can change its phenotype in response to changes in the environment, is remarkable. For the allele a to go from being the more dominant trait to the less dominant trait compared to allele b and be able to make that adaption to its new environment is unsound. The phenotypic plasticity is altruistic because of the way they help each other make the adaption from one lifestyle to the next.
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.
From the start of his critique of the McLean v. Arkansas case, Laudan argues that the basis of the ruling, that is, the interpretation of what does and does not constitute science, was weak at best. “The Opinion [of Judge Overton] offers five essential properties that demarcate scientific knowledge from other things: '(1) It is guided by natural law; (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; (3) it is testable against the empirical world; (4) it's conclusions are tentative...; and (5) it is falsifiable.” He also presents the fact that creationism was described as being “untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable”, three facts which he believes to be untrue. He argues that creationists make many claims that are definitely testable, such as the age of the Earth and in what time frame various species appeared. In fact, these claims have been tested many times over, and have been proven to be incorrect. By saying that creationism is untestable and/or falsifiable, those that argue against it are “depriv[ing] science of its strongest argument against creationism.” He does concede that there are some components of creationism that are not