The team was selected to study extraterrestrial organisms. The people who made up this team were: Dr. Jeremy Stone, bacteriologist specialist; Dr. Peter Leavitt, disease pathology; Dr. Charles Burton, infection vectors specialist; and Dr. Mark Hall, M.D., surgeon, biochemistry and pH specialist. Out of all the members, Dr. Mark Hall was the only one who was not married. After activating Wildfire, the military goes back to piedmont in hope to find clues as to what happened. While there they come across an elderly man named Peter Jackson and an infant named Jamie Ritter.
When conducted honestly and thoroughly, the scientific method can and has provided valuable information about the world and the world’s people (Jackson, 2009). Though some people rely on other methods for gaining knowledge, scientists only accept knowledge gained through science to arrive at plausible truths (Jackson, 2009). Due in part to human error and the tendency of human nature to succumb to temptations to bias research, the results of the scientific method should be viewed with skepticism (Garzon, n.d.). The scientific method of seeking knowledge and finding truth must stay within the limits of scientific ability and allow for human fragility in order to be effective (Slick, 2012). References Garzon, F. (n.d.).
b Operations Experiment 9A: Lab Operations and Uncertainty Jenaqua Hairston Dr. Bump 10/20/11 Purpose/Background During experiments values are obtained and compared to true values which leads to the accuracy of an experiment. However, a complete accurate value is never achieved, because all experimental data is impacted by errors of some sort. Whether it be human error or things along the line of measurements taken, values will not always meet the expectations of a true value. Experimental uncertainty is often present in the form of systematic errors which can not be avoided. Systematic error in physical sciences commonly occurs with the measuring instrument having a zero error.
The Adromeda Strain The Andromeda Strain The basic situation of the novel is that bacteria is brought to the earth from space by a U.S. Military space probe looking for new weapons. After it comes to earth it kills all the people of the small town of Piedmont in Arizona except for a baby named Jamie Ritter and an old man named Peter Jackson and the bacterium threatens to wipe out all living creatures in its path unless a vaccine is invented to protect against it. Then the scientists can’t agree with the army and the President over the best way to fight the virus. There are lots of conflicts between the characters on the Wildfire team. Stone has a low opinion of Hall’s ability to help and thinks that Burton is a slob.
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.
Popper believes that falsifiable is the only way to separate pseudoscience from science. We cannot separate pseudoscience and science with truth, because there are instances where pseudoscientific theories are true and scientific theories are false. Truth is also too easy to come by; pseudoscience can make vague claims that can’t help but be true and theories can be written in such a way that they are true by definition. Since truth is too cheap we must go in the opposite direction. If it is possible that a theory can be proven false then it is a scientific
So, he will find that consolation in paradise, but it does not become more truthful from it. Science is not a religion, because it is not based on the scriptures, nor the revelation, but only on the facts. This is difference between science and
Also their small scale means that results may not be representative or generalisable to the wider population. On the other hand interpretivists reject the laboratory experiments because it fails to achieve their main goal of validity. It is an artificial environment producing unnatural behavior. Drifting away from the advantages, There are various practical problems with laboratory experiments. Society is very complex and in practice it would be impossible to control variables that may influence a situation.
Unlike in a field experiment where the participants are completely unaware that they are being observed so it gives more of a natural response, this allows the researchers to gain results with greater validity. In a laboratory experiment, the researchers have to tell the percipients the reasons for the experiment to allow the percipients to give full consent this is due to the ethical reasons such as if the person doesn’t agree due to religion/beliefs, ethnicity ect. Where as, the percipients of a field experiment have to be unaware of the reasons for the research to allow a higher rate of natural answers. This means that field experiments are less ethically agreed with. An example of a laboratory experiment is Asch (a psychologist) who tested the rate of conformity within groups.
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.