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.).
Most psychologists today agree that the concept of mind and body have merit. But, more important is to provide empirical evidence to confirm the relationship between mind and body (The History of Psychology, 2006). The Beginnings of Modern Psychology Rene Descartes (1596-1650), a French mathematician and philosopher, took up the viewpoint that introspection and reflection are investigatory methods superior to observation. Descartes revived the Platonic ideas of mind-body dualism and innate (versus acquired) knowledge. He said that what separates humans from animals is that humans have a non-material, spiritual mind and a material body.
The difference Jung has with Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality and libido. Jung refused to accept that sexual instinct is the main psychological drive which led him to develop his own theory and therefore his own school of analytic psychology. The two characteristics of these theories I agree with are Alder’s four types of people and dream interpretation aided the treatment of patients. The two that I disagree with are Jung’s analytic psychology and Displacement is one of many defense mechanisms which are when a person is upset or angry with someone else and when he or she comes around other people they are still upset taking their anger out on people that had nothing to do with why she or he is
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.
Society is like the nature, an objective factual reality; it is a "real" thing made up of social facts that exists "out there", independently of individuals. They seek to discover the causes of patterns they observe to produce general statements or scientific laws, like natural scientists do. In order to do this, they use objective quantitative research, meaning value-free and number based data. They make up a hypothesis and test it in systematic and controlled ways, like in experiments. So these methods produce reliable data that can be checked by other researchers, which is one of the most important features in science.
From this Moore claimed that it is impossible to derive an ‘is from an ought’. This criticism became known as the naturalistic fallacy. In addition to this G.E Moore claimed that naturalism was not able to stand up to the open question argument. ethical naturalism claims to be based on moral facts, it would therefore seem logical that these facts should stand up to scrutiny. Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure.
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
Next, I will explain Lewis’s reply about why Knowledge Argument can’t refute physicalism. Finally, I will express my own opinion and show my reasons. Frank Jackson puts knowledge Argument forward. Although he thinks that physical knowledge provides us with some information relate to the world, and help people to understand the world in an objective way. However, in the process of experience, human cannot feel the “feeling” using the concepts of that “feeling”, which is named Qualia.
Psychology- as explored through the eyes of Carl Jung and Abraham Maslow When Carl Jung says, “Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves”, he very aptly describes the role that Psychology plays in exploring and examining the processes of the human brain and how that impacts our behaviors and personality. Comparing the theories of Jung and Maslow could take hours since each one had enough to say about what their beliefs were about the human condition. But while Carl Jung focused on how the unconscious affected our personality (Introversion and Extraversion), Abraham Maslow focused on the integration of self (Self-Actualization Theory). Jung believed that there were active centers in the unconscious
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.