The Common View of Science which was Presented by Alan Chalmers

842 Words2 Pages

This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions. The Chalmers's view against the Popperian hypothetico-deductive. Popper mentioned that people shouldn't concentrate our hopes on an unacceptable principle of induction.Also, he claimed that without relying on induction we still can work out how science works and why it is rational.1 Hence, I would like to said Popper would disagree with Chalmer's opinion. Also, I think Popperian might say Chalmers is wrong because his falsifiable in Popperian sense. Chalmers might be falsified if scientific knowledge is observed not reliable due to some experiment and observation might contain mistakes and we do not find them now. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science can not be prove but can justify the better theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are better ones as there is falsified is found, or not scientific. When they are found falsified or not scientific, we can seek for novel bold hypot... ... middle of paper ... ...ative imagining can also have a space in science because it might be able to lead to the developments of new conjectures and advanced knowledge comes out due to this. The above explanations also against the idea that - 'science is objective' because I claimed that individual opinion and speculative imagining should be seen as a part of developing science knowledge. As a result, I would say that science is partially subjective and partially objective. In conclusion, the view of Chalmers would be falsified and against to Popperian's hypothetico-deductive method. I agree with Popperian's view and objected the definition of science which defined by Chalmers because science knowledge is not always reliable. Also, individual opinion and personal speculative imagining and have a place in science. Finally, the science should be partially subjective and partially objective.

Show More
Related

  • Philosophy of Science and the Theory of Natural Selection

    4356 Words  | 9 Pages

    There is a modest version and a robust version of descriptive philosophy of science. The aim of the modest version is the historical reconstruction of actual evaluative practice. Given that scientists preferred one theory (explanation, research strategy...) to a second, the modest descriptivist seeks to uncover the evaluative standards whose application led to this preference. For instance, the modest descriptivist may seek to uncover the standards implicit within such evaluative decisions as Aristotle's rejection of pangenesis, Newton's rejection of Cartesian Vortex Theory, or Einstein's insistence that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Pursuit of a modest descriptive philosophy of science may require a certain amount of detective work, particularly for episodes in which the pronouncements of scientists and their actual practice do not coincide.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Science And Christianity

    535 Words  | 2 Pages

    Science is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. There are three principals that underlines science and they are data, theory and shaping principals. Data is empirically generated information that is used to generate theories and to evaluate theory. Theory are explanatory frameworks that can be assigned against data. Shaping principals refers to the auxiliary concepts that make science possible and defines what makes a good theory. There a...

    Read More

  • The Theory of Scientific Theories

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    Sir Popper's piece, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations," reaffirms the scientific methods currently in use. No scientific theory is ratified without serious consideration and careful observation. Science is the pursuit of what can be proven false and the resulting assumptions of what must be true.

    Read More

  • Karl Popper: Conjectures And Refutations, The Growth Of Scientific Knowledge

    1028 Words  | 3 Pages

    Karl Popper was a 20th century Austrian-British Philosopher who authored the paper Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. In this paper, Popper discussed several questions and issues that he had with the philosophy of science. He first discussed the difference between science and pseudoscience. He defined science as using an empirical method (induction) that follows observations or experiments. Pseudoscience (metaphysics) also relies on observational methods, but does not meet scientific standards. Pseudoscience also relies on the interpretation of an observation. An example of this would be the study of astrology, which relies on horoscopes and biographies. In distinguishing the differences between science and pseudoscience, Popper

    Read More

  • Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of Dinosaurs by Stephen Jay Gould

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.

    Read More

  • The Wonder Of Imagination In Deborah Ross's Escape From Wonderland

    1114 Words  | 3 Pages

    Imagination is the action of creating new ideas, scenarios, or concepts that are not present. It is the ability to form a mental image of anything that is not perceived through senses. It’s the ability of the mind to build mental scenes, objects or events that do not exist or are not there or have never happened. “...the pleasures of the imagination exist because they hijack mental system that have evolved for real world pleasure. We enjoy imaginative experiences because at some level we don’t distinguish them from real ones.” (pg.577 parg 4, Bloom)

    Read More

  • Division of ‘Art’ and ‘Science’: Comparison of Popper and Woolf’s Theories

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    Popper, Karl. “Science as Falsification”. Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963, pp. 33-39; from Theodore Schick, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Science, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 9-13.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Social Construction Of Facts And Artifacts

    605 Words  | 2 Pages

    Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...

    Read More

  • Alan Chalmers

    960 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alan Chalmers has pointed out in the article that scientific knowledge can be confirmed by the fact that scientific theory comes from experience gained through observation and experimentation. Science is an objective phenomenon or rule, not a personal subjective point of view. The purpose of this article is to compare and discuss between Alan Chalmers’s emphases on science is Inductive Reasoning, and Karl Popper's hypothesis deduction. In short, the two contradictory theories of science, inductive reasoning and falsification will be mentioned, and I will focus on showing the relationship of these two theories.

    Read More

  • Literature and Natural Science have Brought New Knowledge into My Life

    1417 Words  | 3 Pages

    Natural science is a structured, reasoned, and organised field of knowledge. Through schematic processes, scientific theories are proposed. Scientists impose self-censorship to support the studied ideas. By observation of the natural phenomena, scientists come up with a question. The question is reformulated into a hypothesis that is ‘falsifiable’. Falsifiability opens to a possibility of controversies to the hypothesis. For example, if a scientist question: “Does God exist?” then this question never is a hypothesis because it is an idea that can never be disproven. After selecting a ...

    Read More

  • Why Is Kuhn's View Of Scientific Theory Still Relativist?

    2069 Words  | 5 Pages

    In “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” Thomas Kuhn responds to critics who claim that his view of science is relativist. They claim that according to his view, theory choice is solely a matter of subjective opinion rather than one that should be based on objective reasons and facts. In response, Kuhn argues that objective criteria alone are not sufficient to choose a good scientific theory. Rather, theory choice consists of both objective criteria and subjective factors. In this paper, I aim to argue that Kuhn’s view of theory choice does reflect how scientists choose theories and that it is not a relativist view. However, his view of how science works is ultimately still relativist because of his notion of incommensurability.

    Read More

  • SOLVING THE DEMARCATION PROBLEM USING THREE THEORIES

    2236 Words  | 5 Pages

    Popper, Karl R. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” In Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routedge and Keagan Paul, 1963), pp. 33-39.

    Read More

  • Discuss The Difference Between Pseudo Science And Pseudo-Science

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to science, a theory, scientific words or scientific research, many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. This illustrates that each individual can identify science in some sort of form. This indicates that science plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it properly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park,1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and

    Read More

  • Knowledge Vs. Imagination

    1243 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay, I aim to discuss the issue whether imagination is more important than knowledge. “For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there will ever be to know and understand” (Albert Einstein).

    Read More

  • Is Popularization of Science Possible?

    1907 Words  | 4 Pages

    Popularization of science is nothing else than an endeavour to image scientific ideas in such a way that everyone (especially non-scientists) can grasp the fundamental concepts and have an idea of what science in essence is. Of course, no one really knows what 'science' is, not even the scientists themselves. Philosophers trying to describe what the scientific method could be and others trying to put down what the scientific method should be, found out (it took them a lot of time) that there is nothing like the 'one and only' scientific approach. The impossibility to give a distinct and unique definition follows. Nevertheless, the phenomenon 'science' and its results do exist. Although nobody can tell exactly what 'science' is all about, everyone should have an idea anyway. The question at stake here is whether this is possible and, if so, to what extent.

    Read More

More about The Common View of Science which was Presented by Alan Chalmers

Open Document