Science and pseudoscience differences aren’t always clear-cut. That is why it is best to know what separates scientists from pseudoscientists. Scientists try to put aside their bias, remain disinterested, and make all their theories or ideas falsifiable to solve problems in everyday life. However, pseudoscientists are imposters. They make their living off their biases, questionable practices, and not falsifiable claims that barely have any scientific evidence behind them.
There must be criteria to go by that can prove whether the study is true or false. So we can start by making an observation and then posting a question to prove that observation true or false. Then, the hypothesis is used to make a guess on the outcome we think that the experiment will have. The third, and final step will be to test our observation and hypothesis and create data to come up with a conclusion for our study. The reason for having a hypothesis-based scientific study is because we do not know the outcome of something.
All human beings seek to be rational in what they do. Yes, science does provide a method of justifying rationality but God is the other part of the spectrum that science cannot explain. God is also another figure that provides rationality to someone who does not understand science the only path to salvation and to rationality is through religion. If this form of God takes 1000 different shapes across many religions, it does not make God untrue, it is just a manifestation. The biggest contradictory idea against the motion would be that of whether God can be proven empirically.
Popper argues the key thing about scientific knowledge is that it’s not a sacred or absolute truth; it can be always questioned, tested and perhaps shown to be false. There’s the question why science has only grown rapidly in the last few centuries. Functionalist Robert K Merton (1973) argues that science can only thrive as a social institution if it receives support from other institutions and values. The new institution of science also received support from economic and military institutions as the value of the practical
Critically assess the implication of miracles for the problem of evil The word miracle comes from the Latin word miraculum meaning an object of wonder. A miracle is an event that is not in accordance with normal everyday events. These events or acts cannot be verified or falsified using scientific knowledge. A miracle often denotes an event attributed to divine intervention. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature; Hume’s idea of violation of laws of nature.
This leads to a conflict between law of nature and miracle stories. Hume would question which is more likely – that the law of nature has been violated or that the eyewitness accounts are mistaken? Hume stated that miracles do not happen because there is so much testable evidence in the favour of laws of science. However, Peter Vardy in ‘Puzzle of God’ highlights that there are more miracles reported today and some are scientifically verified e.g. Lourdes.
For example it would be almost impossible to control the variables that may influence a situation and although being able to control the environment/variables may seem like a good thing all its creating is an artificial environment. This is the reason why field experiments are better favored by an interpritivist as an experimental method. There are also many ethical issues regarding the conduction of experiments on human beings as informed consent is necessary from the participants and it is difficult or impossible to get consent of somebody who has learning difficulties or is a baby. Many sociologists choose not
Ad what is the new problem of induction, introduced by Goodman? What are the implications of science of relying on a theory that itself is not scientifically provable? The principle of induction is to discern future truths based upon previously recognized phenomena. It relies heavily on assumptions regarding the state of nature, assumptions which if false, would result in a false belief being formed by the same process as true belief. In order to answer the question above, I will first explain Hume’s argument, then discuss the ‘New Riddle of Induction’ introduced to us by Nelson Goodman, and then conclude with my thoughts and establish why I believe induction has no place within the philosophy of science.
Science is ‘open’ –ideas are tested and proved if they are wrong – rejected – and other idea replaced Science and Religion Scientific ideas create problems for religion. – Existence of God or Gods cannot be proved. Religious beliefs relies on faith rather than scientific facts and evidence.
Critical Interpretive Essay What is the value of science? This question could have very many answers, which one could use a very scientific language to describe the value. Richard Feynman’s “The Value of Science” has a much different approach to answering this very complex question. Through critical interpretive analysis of Feynman’s writing, I communicate what is at stake from this writing. Richard Feynman begins his essay very unique way for being a science based essay in which he controls the purpose throughout the entire essay.