The human sciences and natural sciences are considered knowledge by many worldwide, as their arguments having convinced people one way or another. While the natural sciences focus on swaying belief by showing duplicable evidence through a strict and standardized methodology, the human sciences focus on explaining how things are and how they came to be using logic, reason, and an understanding of human behavior.
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
The scientific method varies in slight differences, as there is no exact universal way, however there is a basic six-step form that is widely accepted. This form has been embellished and improved over time; however the first established form was invented by Ibn al-Haythem, a Muslim physicist, in his Book of Optics. It is as follows:
1. Explicit statement of a problem, tied to observation and to proof by experiment
2. Testing and/or criticism of a hypothe...
... middle of paper ...
...te results that attempt to be unbiased, and the paradigm box ensures the experiments that are carried out fit the thought pattern of the majority of people. Human science uses logic and reason to explain how things are that appeal to a person’s thought and understanding. Both are justifiable in their own circumstances, and utilize ways of knowing that directly affect their methodology.
Works Cited
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.
Sagan, C. (1996). The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. New York: Random House.
The Scientific Process. (n.d.). www2.nau.edu. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm
al-Hayathem, I. (1983). The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham, Books I – II - III: On Direct Vision.. Kuwait: National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters.
Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of the Universe. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts this very difference in the story of Victor Frankenstein. A scientist who through performing his experiments creates a monster which wreaks havoc upon humanity. Frankenstein concentrating wholly upon discovery ignores the consequences of his actions.
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
Scientists make progress by using the scientific method, a process of checking conclusions against nature. After observing something, a scientist tries to explain what has been seen. The explanation is called a hypothesis. There is always at least one alternative hypothesis. A part of nature is tested in a "controlled experiment" to see if the explanation matches reality. A controlled experiment is one in which all treatments are identical except that some are exposed to the hypothetical cause and some are not.
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
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 Demon Haunted World is a collection of scientific explanations written by Carl Sagan. Sagan is a famous astronomer who has written many books. Sagan is known for having very strong and pointed opinions that come across as offensive to some people. These strong opinions are very evident in his books. In his book the Demon Haunted World, he used his strong opinions to invalidate the most popular pseudoscience. This is one of the reasons that I choose to read this book . I believe in some pseudoscience, so I was interested in hearing the counterargument to these heavily debated topics.
What is the main difference between science and other types of knowledge? The answer to this question is simple: methodology. Science is not the usual techno-electronic and green-blue colored liquids that one perceives when hearing the word “science” but it as simple as a method. The method of scientific logic, deduction and logical reasoning is what classifies knowledge into science. All other types are known as non-scientific bodies of knowledge, some types of which are unorganized and unrelated to the natural world.
Kuhn’s book was focused on the scientific world. He said that normal science “means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievments, achievments thatsome particular scientific community aacknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Kuhn 10). These achievments needed to be unprecedented and open-ended so as to attract a group away from competing ideas and to leave all sorts of problems for this group to resolve. these achievments are called paradigms. a paradigm is defined by Kuhn as “an accepted canon of scientific practice, including laws, theory, applications, and instrumentation, that provides a model for a particular coherent tradition of scientific research” (Trigger 5).
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
The Scientific Revolution was sparked through Nicolaus Copernicusí unique use of mathematics. His methods developed from Greek astr...
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.
Nature of science or NOS is a term that refers to the epistemic knowledge of science, the knowledge of constructs and values that are intrinsic to the subject. The constructs and values include historical groundwork to scientific discovery and social incorporation such as sociology, philosophy, and history of science (“Nature of Science”). Nature of science, in my opinion, should not be explicitly taught in high school science curriculum. The basis for my standing on the issue is representative of the lack of a fundamental standard understanding of what Nature of Science is, as well as the lack of effectiveness in explicitly teaching Nature of Science which I will expand on further in
The major strength of science is that it has uncertainty and skepticism. Science never claims to be hundred percent accurate. There is always some degree of ambiguity and probability in science. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty in quantum mechanics is a good example of this. According to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty, we can never be sure of the position of the quantum particles. There is always a degree of fuzziness in nature and a fundamental limit to what we can understand about these particles and their behavior. We can only calculate the probability of the nature of the particle and ho...
Thanks to his studies, especially after the translation of Kitâb al-Manâzir (The Book of Optics), many scholars and scientists were inspired. Later European scholars were able take what he had discovered and further our knowledge about cameras and optics in general. Alhazen’s creation of the pinhole camera is the reason why cameras and other important inventions were created, such as eye-glasses, magnifying glasses and telescopes were created, as scholars and scientists knew how images are reflected in our eyes. He especially influenced Isaac Ne...
The arguments on both sides include reason and causes, introspection verse observation and holism verse reduction. For social science is the distinction between reason and causes. For social scientist argument is that we should be concern with the purity of causes and not with reasons. An example would be to study what cause people to do the things they do and not study the reason for what people do. The inner argument is we should look into reason why people do thing because it cause people to do the things they do. If we do not look at the whole story, we will miss out. Natural science side believes they should explain the world reasons for purpose and goals rather the causal forces. Example: Why the sun move across the sky verse what the sun want to do. Another example would be is the reason why the birds’ beak is formed to catch food. A cause is, it formed to eat seeds. They believe we should take the purpose and intent out and understand it in a...