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).
Rational knowledge is often derived from syllogisms. Unless both the major and minor premises of syllogisms are sound, the logical conclusions drawn from the rational thoughts are unsound. Scientists cannot rely on rational knowledge alone because rational knowledge involved only form and not content (Jackson, 2009). Empirical knowledge is gained through objective observations and a person’s experience in relation to his or her senses (Jackson, 2009). A person who relies on empirical knowledge only believes what can be detected by his/her senses (sight, sound, taste, etc.).
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.
* Interpretive: facts are settled, but argue on what theory applies and so on * Evaluative: the significance * Methodological: procedures and techniques + what will be the outcome 6. At what point in his analysis does Casper identify scientific discourse that describes "science as it is actually performed?" - he is talking about the nobel prize lectures because they talk about the start, stop, and pitfalls differently than a research report does, it’s how science is actually performed 7. As a result of his analysis of Nobel lectures what characteristics does Casper attribute to epideictic scientific discourse? - little modulation or hedging (type of statements) - value of the research and the future (stasis) - recognition of other’s help/work/achievement - discussion on the nature of science itself 8.
During guided inquiry students are provided with only the research question. Finally, during the open inquiry student are asked to “act like scientists, deriving
He is almost certainly sure that no God exists, but says that he would change this view if he were confronted with empirical evidence that suggested otherwise. However, Dawkins’s declaration that he is not a fundamentalist could be questioned by examining other parts of his book. Dawkins seems to focus more on the evidence that religion lacks opposed to the evidence that his evidence-based worldview contains. He also holds Darwinism in a very high esteem. One might say that Dawkins’s view of Darwinism is a strict set of basic ideas and principles, embodying the definition of fundamentalism.
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
Valid Conclusions Affirming If p is true then q is true the p is true antecedent q is true Modus ponens Valid If Newton was a scientist, then he was a person Newton was a scientist Newton was a person If p is true then q is true Denying the q is not true consequent p must be not true Modus tollens Valid If an officer is a general, then he was a captain. Gerald is NOT a captain, So he NOT a general. 3 Invalid Conclusions Affirming
If you answer NO to any of the questions in red, then the example is Pseudoscience. · Has it been tested and observed numerous times by more than one group of scientists? · Is the study or data documented completely, and does it follow the scientific method? · Does the information contain just the facts and avoid mixing in opinion and assumption? · Is the information presented purely for public knowledge, avoiding being connected with a new product that is for sale?
A paradigm is a collective set of assumptions about a subject and the method of enquiry taken to investigate it. Kuhn believes that a subject can only be a science if the majority of its workers agree with and work within a common global theory or paradigm. He describes 3 stages in the development of science; pre-science; normal science and revolution. Pre-science is when there is no paradigm, normal science is where a paradigm is established and all researchers dedicate themselves to exploring this paradigm whereas revolution is when a point is reached where so much evidence conflicts the paradigm that it is rejected and replaced by one which can accommodate the conflicting findings. Kuhn would argue that psychology falls into pre-science as there is no paradigm due to there being six different approaches that don’t agree with each other and provide various pieces of conflicting evidence.