There are many different criteria to when it comes to the ethical justification of knowledge, all based on different perspectives; whether these judgements have a direct impact in knowledge production or come into play in hindsight depends largely upon how ethics is perceived. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that suggests that the goodness of an action is dependent on its consequences. When we consider the two areas of knowledge from a utilitarian perspective, ethical judgements would be made based on hypothesis by weighing potential advantages against consequences. But are results alone a well-founded basis to raise ethical limitations from? This is problematic because in the sciences, it is often difficult to foresee the implications of scientific research; likewise, in the arts, it is seldom possible to anticipate what messages the audience will attain from a work.
Nature versus nurture has emerged as one of the most heated debates in the 21st century. It is more aligned towards the internal and external factors that comprise human beings behavior. The internal factors are innate and perceived to be genetically revolved as opposed to the external factors that are influenced by the environment and individuals’ experiences. However, scholars in different fields have researched on the relationship between nature and nurture without due success and this has created gaps for further research on this topic. This context will review academic sources to scrutinize their bone of contention on this matter as well as criticize them for their shortcomings in addressing this topic.
The notion of applying laws of the natural sciences to humans has given rise to significant dispute and controversy in the field of philosophy. Two such controversies debated in relation to applying natural scientific laws to human subjects to be outlined in this essay are that of “free will versus determinism” and “understanding versus explanation”. In order for the argument to be valid, one must first distinguish between the basic principles of the two sciences. The human sciences encompass the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, political science and sociology. In these human sciences, a theory is researched and applied in order to understand a unique concept of human behaviour.
The nature vs. nurture argument is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate concerning whether human behaviors are caused predominantly by nature or nurture. Nature is described in this debate as genetic or innate behaviors, while nurture is often defined as environment and experiences. Although it is the consensus that an individual is a heterogeneous product of both his genetics and environment, one of the two occasionally plays a larger role in shaping the behaviors and actions of the individual, making it the complicated argument it is. Additionally, depending on how innately ‘good or bad’ the behavioral determinant is, it can either lead to their success or demise. Mary Shelly exemplifies the complicated interactions between
Before we can go on to discuss the relationships between intelligence and the controversy that exists between the different schools of thought regarding inherited or environmental issues we must have an understanding of what intelligence really is. Of all the words used in pressed day psychology, intelligence is one of the most difficult to define and is also one of the most controversial. There is however, a general agreement that intelligence refers to the overall faculties of the mind which concern themselves with the sorting of information in the brain after it has been received by the senses, the perceiving of relationships between this new data and information which is already in memory, and the capacity to make rapid and appropriate decisions as a result of the previous processes. The intellectual faculties of the brain are dynamic and interactive and relate to the capacity of the central nervous system to respond speedily and appropriately in a rapidly changing and potentially threatening environment. Raymond J. Corsini provides us with a somewhat more simplistic definition of the term intelligence.
How much serious those problems are is recognized not only by seeing the magnitude of material or biological crises, such as environmental disruption. What is likewise serious is what one may call "the epistemic-moral inability", a crisis in our ability "to cope with uncertainty" in both science and morality. The purpose of this paper is to trace the origin of this crisis and problematize it as a defect of the form of human self-understanding in contemporary scientific-technological culture, with the help of Hannah Arendt's reflection on human activities. In every civilization, we may find some peculiar "cosmology" that stands for the human self-understanding that is embodied in the human's relationships with the world and the self-image of who we are and what we do. The distinction between man and nature, for example, should be considered as "cultural construction" that depends on that understanding, not as objectively specifiable by means of scientific treatment.
Among these rules are "formulative theories that are internally consistent," "seek severe tests of theories," (Popper) and "achieve a consilience of inductions" (Whewell). As a descriptive theory of science, the "Evolutionary-Origins" view is prima facie inconsistent with evidence that human beings often make decisions that violate the "genetically-hard-wired rules." As a normative-prescriptive philosophy of science, the "Evolutionary-Origins" view is limited by the fact that in biological evolution, adaptation to present pressures may be achieved at the expense of a loss of adaptability (the capacity to respond creatively to future changes in environmental conditions). In the 1980s, the hitherto-dominant normative-prescriptive conception of philosophy of science became the subject of a debate which continues to the present time. Some philosophers of science suggested that the proper aim of the discipline is the description of scientific evaluative practice.
In order for a scientific t... ... middle of paper ... ...ith the correct knowledge. Although religion and science have different approaches to answering the question why, it is debatable whether one provides any benefits over the other. The deciding factor on whether religion or science is better is completely dependent on an individual’s perception. Overall, history and the natural sciences have contrasting methods in building or falsifying knowledge, because of their drastically different ways of knowing. Yet, both areas of knowledge develop previously regarded knowledge, which may sometimes be discarded, built upon, or distorted to prove an opinion or theory.
The Role of Genes in the Development of Behavior The debate concerning the influence of genes on human behavior has been on-going for centuries. The nature vs. nurture (or heredity Vs. environment) debates are one of the longest running, and most controversial, both inside and outside psychology. It is concerned with some of the most fundamental questions a human being could ask, such as 'Why are we they way we are?' and 'why do we develop as we do?' Historically this debate has been fought from extreme perspectives, arguing that it is either nature (an individuals heredity genetic make up), or nurture (the environmental influences upon an individual) that determine a person's behavior.
What is responsible for these differences? Is it simply that they are two different people with different interests and preferences? Or did the environments that they grew up in play a part in making who they are? In the nature vs. nurture controversy, nature proclaims that our genetic make-up plays the primary role in human development, while nurture declares that our environment dictates our development. The nature vs. nurture controversy is an age old question in the scientific and psychological world with both camps having evidence to support their theories.