Science has cognitive power, it can allow us to explain, predict and control the world. The first argument made about science and ideology as belief systems came from Karl Popper. Popper believed that science is an “open belief system” in which scientist’s theories are criticised and are open to testing by other scientists. He further states science is regulated by the principle of falsificationsim. This principle declares that in order for a hypothesis to be scientific, a basic requirement is that it is falsifiable.
Science is governed by the principle of falsificationism. Scientists set out to try and falsify existing theories, deliberately seeking evidence that would disprove them. If the evidence from an experiment or observation contradicts a theory and shows it to be false, the theory can be discarded and the search for a better explanation can begin. In science, knowledge claims live or die by the evidence. Popper argues discarding falsified knowledge claims; is what enables scientific understanding
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.
However, in the pursuit of knowledge, disagreement can be helpful. A disagreement in knowledge leads to new discoveries and helps us obtain new information. Just agreeing with people leads to nothing. Learning is questioning previously believed facts. Questioning knowledge plays a big part in how we learn – particularly in natural science.
In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
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.
In what ways may disagreement aid the pursuit of knowledge in the natural and human sciences? The American astronomer and astrophysicist Carl Sagon once debated that ‘At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes - an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.’ Disagreement can be defined as “a conflict or difference of opinion”. This idea of disagreement can be either beneficial or detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge in science. This essay will discuss various ideas by different scientists and schools of science, how it may aid science by creating an incentive to stretch ourselves to the limits of our capabilities and the race for knowledge. Disagreement can aid the pursuit of knowledge in several different ways.
Good arguments or good reasons with science are those that are supported by the scientific method. In the realm of science, various theories and hypotheses can be tested and supported through the scientific method. Pseudoscience refers to a theory that belongs to the domain of science; however, it is not scientifically testable. Pseudoscience is collections of ideas or theories that are made by people who claim their theories are “scientific when they are not scientific”. Pseudoscience cannot be said as a science because their theories do not come from observation and lead nowhere to further scientific problems.
They make their living off their biases, questionable practices, and not falsifiable claims that barely have any scientific evidence behind them. I would go to a scientist if I had a problem that needed to be solved because scientists try to put aside all their biases to help to solve the problem at hand. There are many different biases that affect our decision making process. Some of these biases include the emotional fallacy and representative heuristic. A scientist knows these biases and they find different ways to overcome 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.