Everything has its limits. Humans have limits on how tall they can grow, computers have limits on how much data they can store, cars have limits on how fast they can go (~ 140 mph before the engine shuts off), and so on. Each of these examples also has powers that make them useful in everyday life. Scientific inquiry also has powers and limits. The powers/limits that will be discussed within this short analysis include: metaphysical & methodological naturalism and science’s presuppositions. Each of these powers/limitations makes up part of the scientific society known to us today and will continue to contribute to scientific inquiry for many more years to come. A selection of readings by Helen Quinn, Hugh G. Gauch, Jr., and Dr. Robert Bishop will be used to support this claim. To begin with the argument between metaphysical and …show more content…
The powers of presuppositions far outweigh the limitations, though both must be acknowledged. Scientific presuppositions are notions tacitly assumed before participating in scientific research as a necessary element of scientific inquiry though they are incapable of being tested. The main, and arguably only, limitation of presuppositions is their required validity to provide scientific truth. On the other hand, Gauch explains the power of presuppositions through the PEL model as a way of providing valid evidence (130). Additional powers of presuppositions include the ability to make hypotheses meaningful and true without prior judgement, and limiting the number of hypotheses made. A visual representation of the power of presuppositions is their penetrations into each and every daily human interaction. My ability to type this essay relies on the presupposition of the existence of an external world, in addition to, the basic reliability of reason. Moreover, your ability to read this paper relies on the presupposition of the basic reliability of sense
Mankind has an insatiable desire to pursue the unknown. A key facet of the human condition is questioning humanity’s place in the universe and what the future holds. Many believe that this is a large factor of what sets mankind apart from the rest of the animal kingdom: the ability to scrutinize the world on a deeper level. There have been many ways of going about this, from observing the planetary ecosystem and analyzing the rest of humanity, to contemplating whether there is a higher power or entity in the universe. It is through these processes that humankind has come up with the theories and beliefs founded in religion. However, with the more recent development of science and technology, society is faced with a whole slew of issues concerning
Stimulating characters that evolve with the plot are fundamental in most novels. These characters could range from the Mary Sue protagonist to the chaotically evil antagonist. In A Lost Lady, Niel Herbert is a significant character along this spectrum. Although Willa Cather herself pointed out he is merely a "peephole" and a "subordinate" to the woman she truly cared for, Niel is a central aspect since he carries the story (132: 20). Early in the novel, he is already portrayed as the classic hero as he injures himself trying to alleviate the woodpecker of its pain. A more intense insight, however, is gathered from him as the plot develops and as he matures. Consequently, Niel discredits initial presumptions about him as he presents qualities and ideologies that make him detrimental to Cather's fictional society, which may be viewed as a microcosm of the actual world. Accordingly, through the patriarchal ideals Niel embraced, the unfounded biases he held, and the ulterior motives he possessed, his heroic stature is unmerited.
In “The principles of human knowledge” George Berkeley responds to the skeptics view about the external world. As we already talked about, skepticism is against the belief that you can know anything because even saying that you “know” something is a big contradiction itsel...
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Perception is the process by which we grasp useful information about the external world through the senses. Armstrong argues in ‘Perception and Belief’ that perceptual experience is a disposition to form beliefs about the real world. The argument from illusion shows that perceptual knowledge is a misrepresentation of the world because external objects may have qualities they do not really possess. This is due to various experiences that are caused by hallucinations or by the influence of drugs. Given that reality can easily be altered by such cases, perception does not seem to represent a direct window onto the world. To overcome this problem, some philosophers like Russell postulated the sense datum theory as an object that stands in relation between the perceiver and an external object. Moreover, this view asserts that the perceiver is never in direct contact with reality but is in a continuous mental state that prevents him to see the world as it is. Hence, the perceiver is not deceived by the illusory cases because there is no objective world to be derived from. Armstrong rejects this theory by appeal to the indeterminacy principle and raises claims to support the reliability of perception as the acquisition of potential belief. On Armstrong’s view, the number of background inferences justifies the validity of perceptual beliefs with respect to providing knowledge of the external world. In ‘Sensation and Perception’, Dretske argues that perception and belief are not inextricably bound simply because belief requires a cognitive refined process of informational input while perception involves the casual flow of raw data not yet processed by the cognitive mechanisms. On Dretske’s view, a sui generis conception of perception tha...
The knowledge question being pursued in this essay is: what role does what we expect to see- or are used to seeing- play in what we observe? What we expect to see greatly influences the observations that we make, as confirmation bias is created therefore we are more likely to accept something as true. It is difficult to make observations with neutrality once bias is formed.
Some of the first major philosophical works that I read were Descartes’ Meditations. In his first Meditation, Descartes writes about the idea of skepticism. This is when I was exposed to the topic of skepticism and I found myself interested in the idea right from the start. Skepticism is one of the most popular topics in epistemology. It is also not a topic that only appeals to philosophers. Skepticism is a topic that draws many people’s attention because it is an idea that rocks the cores of many of the beliefs that are closest to us. After all, some of the concepts that follow from the idea of skepticism are ones such as we might not actually have any knowledge of the world or the world, as we know it, might not actually be real. Skeptical scenarios prove to be both intriguing and intimidating. Responses to skepticism usually turn out to be satisfying in some ways but carry unwanted baggage in other ways. Overall, skepticism is a topic that much thought has been dedicated to and one that has led to many philosophical developments. In this paper, I will touch upon
Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.
In conclusion, the extent to which we need evidence to support our beliefs depends on which area of knowledge being discussed, as those known for their objectivity and fact-based theories such as science and math require evidence to support the beliefs of individuals to a large extent, while those such as religion and art require little evidence as they are based upon our individual sense perception and faith, and therefore because it is not based upon reason but emotion does not need evidence to be justified, or to be justified at all. In these areas of knowledge, it is only to see how valid a belief is that that evidence is necessary.
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
For an example, consider two alternative belief systems A and B consisting of beliefs A1, A2 and B1, B2 respectively. There are two beliefs in each system none of which can justify themselves alone. If A1 → A2 and A2 → A1, then there are 2 inferential connections in A and a high inferential density. Bonjour says this makes A likely. However, if only B1 → B2 and not vice versa, then there is only 1 non-mutual inferential connection in B and thus a low inferential density. Bonjour suggests that lack of mutual justification makes the whole system of B unjustified since B1 must act foundationally.
This essay will show that ethical considerations do limit the production of knowledge in both art and natural sciences and that such kind of limitations are present to a higher extent in the natural sciences.
Up until the Enlightenment, mankind lived under the notion that religion, moreover intelligent design, was most likely the only explanation for the existence of life. However, people’s faith in the church’s ideals and teachings began to wither with the emergence of scientific ideas that were daringly presented to the world by great minds including Galileo and Darwin. The actuality that there was more to how and why we exist, besides just having an all-powerful creator, began to interest the curious minds in society. Thus, science began to emerge as an alternative and/or supplement to religion for some. Science provided a more analytical view of the world we see while religion was based more upon human tradition/faith and the more metaphysical world we don’t necessarily see. Today science may come across as having more solid evidence and grounding than religion because of scientific data that provides a seemingly more detailed overview of life’s complexity. “Einstein once said that the only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” (Polkinghorne, 62). Yet, we can still use theories and ideas from both, similar to Ian Barbour’s Dialouge and Integration models, to help us formulate an even more thorough concept of the universe using a human and religious perspective in addition to scientific data.
The power of our mind comes not from its ability to observe, but its ability to apply these observations to create assumptions about the world around us. In doing so our mind goes beyond the information given, our sensory information, and uses these assumptions to respond in an appropriate manner. For our purposes an assumption is any belief or prediction we have about an object or situation that could not be ascertained solely from the information given to us by our senses and is based on prior experiences with the purpose of giving us reliable information to use. Our mind makes assumptions because without doing so it would need to treat every event as a new problem to be solved, when one’s mind finally did come to the solution, it would likely be one it had come to innumerable times before. As such, assumptions tend to be helpful shortcuts that allow us to use less processing power.
The concept of ‘knowledge’ is infinitely broad, but there do exist three subcategories in which a majority of knowledge is encompassed. The knowledge contained within each category carries with it different characteristics, different applications, and certainly varying amounts of weight from the perspective of any individual. The three categories are religious, mathematical, and scientific knowledge. Many questions arise when examining this system of partition. Should knowledge from one category be trusted over knowledge from another? Is one type of knowledge more easily verified than a different type? What exactly are all the differences between religious, mathematical, and scientific knowledge? Reasonable answers to all these questions could not responsibly be answered in this, or any single paper, however, there is one question that can be answered to a reasonable degree of certainty. Which type of knowledge is the most applicable to the real world? Despite the mass appeal of religious knowledge and the arguable purity of mathematical knowledge, it is the tangible scientific knowledge that is most useful and most applicable to the real world. In order to justify this, it is necessary to present at least a brief investigation into each type of knowledge, noting its origin, appeal, and other unique characteristics.