Initial response: My initial response to the question is yes, all criticism is important to the objectivity of science and must be taken into consideration. Philosophical context: To discuss this question I will use “Values and Objectivity” by Helen Longino along with actual studies involving scientific objectivity. In Longino’s work, she sets up the avenues for criticism of scientific work and explains why they are important. Objection 1: One of the main issues with using all criticism in science is the fact that not all criticism is worthy of being taken into consideration. This comes up as an issue in the book “Merchants of Doubt” when talking about climate change research. In 1979, there were two studies done on the impact of carbon dioxide on the environment in response to others that had been done. One done by natural scientists and one done by economists. The report done by the natural scientists matched up with what had been said before -- that the amount it was increasing was a problem, but when the economists put out their report it was quite different. Their conclusion showed that any action at the time would be costly and that any serious changes would be so far off that they can be discounted. This is a substantial problem with including all criticism in science. …show more content…
To remedy this we can not say that “all” criticisms should be taken into account, but that “all criticisms that are credible and not intended for political gain” are the ones that should be listened too. It’s also important that one does not ignore just for the sake that it does not agree with either your conclusion or what you hope to achieve from your research. If all of these rules are followed, criticism will go a long way in making science as objective as
When this finding infringes on someone’s lifestyle or corporate interests, the reaction to the discovery becomes unfavorable. A contributing factor to the rejection of scientific findings is directly related to political affiliation. Since the 1970s, conservatives have experienced a continuous decay of trust in the scientific community. By 2010, the contrasting trust in the scientific community has become more evident, with liberals retaining more trust in them and conservatives reducing theirs. Climate science has contributed greatly to this conflict.
This can take a turn for the worse: if scientists have to have their work follow what politics, religions, and people believe, we might limit what science stands for. Religion and politics should never have control over science, instead they should use science to help explain their own goals. Science should be used as a way to challenge old beliefs and help clear out fact from fiction. At the same time though, science should challenge itself so it can stay true to its main point of challenging old dogmas, as Carl Sagan said in his article.
From birth, Dionysus showed his mysterious and dual personality. Zeus was attracted to his mother, Semele, a princess of Thebes, and visited her in human guise and she became pregnant. She was tricked by Hera into asking him to reveal himself in his divine glory, whereupon she was instantly burned in the thundering fires. From her smoldering body a vine grew to shield the fetus, a bull-horned child crowned with serpents. Zeus removed him and placed him into his own thigh, from where Dionysus was later born; hence he is called twice-born. To protect the new infant from Hera's jealousy, Hermes carried him to Ino, Semele's sister, as a foster mother, and she started to raise him as a girl. Ino and her husband were driven mad and killed their own children. Then the divine child was changed into a young goat, and taken by Hermes to be raised by the nymphs of Mount Nysa. He was tutored by Silenus, often shown as a drunken satyr (Powell, 243). From these beginnings we can begin to detect some of the recurring images in the Dionysian religion: the vine, whether grape or ivy; the polymorphic, shape-shifting nature of the god; the madness and violence he brings with him; the wildness of nature, and the mountain nymphs and satyrs.
The book Revealing the Invisible was written by Sherry Marx, a formal teacher, who went in-depth to explore the racist beliefs of white female teacher education students. The book began with Marx talking about pre service teachers that focused on English-language learning school children (ELLs). During this course she discovered just how low the expectations her students had for ELLs students. Throughout her interviews she will explore more beliefs of white females and their thoughts about race, racism, whiteness, and the children they tutored.
It is often said that products made in sweatshops are cheap and that is why people buy those products, but why is it behind the clothes or shoes that we wear that make sweatshops bad? In the article Sweat, Fire and Ethics by Bob Jeffcott is trying to persuade the people and tell them how sweatshops are bad.
Stosny states that “criticism fails because it embodies two of the things that human beings hate the most: it calls for submission, and we hate to submit and it devalues, and we hate to feel devalued” (Stosny). Furthermore, he argues that criticism is used as a form of “ego defense” when we feel devaluated by behavior or attitude as opposed to disagreeing with their behavior or attitude (Stosny). Tony Schwartz, author of the article “There’s No Such Thing as Constructive Criticism” for HarvardBusinessReview.com, says that criticism “challenges our sense of value” and “implies judgement and we all recoil feeling judged” (Schwartz). Schwartz reiterates the point that constructive criticism is a useful tool that isn’t working or doesn’t exist simply because people don’t know how to properly give or receive constructive criticism. To prove this, he lists three reasons why we assume constructive criticism doesn’t work while in reality it actually does. “The first mistake we often make is giving feedback when we are feeling that our own value is at risk. That’s a recipe for disaster, and it happens far more commonly than we think, or are aware” (Schwartz). To summarize this reason he listed, Schwartz states that when we feel like we’re being
Debra Satz, in “Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale”, argues for a more complex approach in market regulation, as some markets are more problematic than others. While economists tend to evaluate exchanges based only on proficiency (Satz 2010, p2), Satz considers the social context of individual practices in market relationships. In Staz proposed theory, there are four parameters of a market that can make it “noxious”. Noxious in this case meaning the effect of the market causes harmful consequences on society or persons involved. First, some markets may be reliant on the vulnerability of one party to trade. Second, some markets may have exceedingly bad consequences, in terms of welfare or status, for persons involved. Third, some markets may be one-sidedness because of insufficient information, knowledge, or ability to understand or forecast the consequences of an arrangement. Fourth, some markets may have bad consequences for society at large when they reinforce discrimination or inequality of status. For example markets that are considered noxious due to one or more parameters being present in their sale are child labor, prostitution and kidney exchange.
When many people write, including myself, they get attached to their writing. Although writing can be a personal thing, I’ve learned that it is important to step away from your paper, and take the feedback on an objective level. The first time I got feedback, I had an overwhelming urge to defend myself. I remember reading that my introduction wasn’t complete, and that my evidence wasn’t properly introduced. I wanted to walk up to those who critiqued my paper, and spit right in their faces. ‘How dare they say bad things about my paper?’ I thought to myself. From here, I went back into my essay, and looked at what they had told me were errors. It was then that I realized that they were right. My introduction needed more background information, and my evidence should have had more of an introduction. They weren’t trying to be mean; they were just helping me receive a better grade, by looking at my essay through an objective view. Now, I go out of my way to ask people for feedback, and tell them to be honest. I want my paper to be the very best it can be, so it isn 't helpful when people hold back. I now understand that those giving feedback aren’t insulting me, or the paper; they are just suggesting ways to improve, or enhance my ideas. Giving and receiving feedback is a hard, yet important skill to learn, and hope to continue improving in this
Feminism in Like Water for Chocolate by Laura Esquivel. There are many different definitions of feminism. Some people regard feminism as the idea that women deserve the same amount of respect that men deserve. There are the other schools of feminist thought that hold women superior to men.
Today, women are not typically seen in higher levels of position in the work force than men. In Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All”, she uses her own experience to convey why it is not possible for a woman to work in a higher position, due to women being more emotional than men. People still believe it’s a women’s place to stay at home to cook, clean and take care of the children, while the men go to work to pay the bills. And it’s considered odd if the man is a stay at home father and the woman is working 24/7 and is never home. Even though it is rewarding to be able to always be there to see your child’s milestones in their life. It is always nice to get away from that life for even a moment. I don’t mean going out with the girls or guys, while you hire a babysitter, but helping your husband or wife pay the bills, so you have two rather than one income coming in at the end of the month. In Richard Dorment’s article, “Why Men Still Can’t Have It All” he states that both men and women can’t have it all. I agree with both Slaughter and Dorment, but not entirely. I believe if you want to be a good
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
" Strong readers often read critically, weighing, for example, an author claims and interpretations against evidence-evidence provided by the author in the text, evidence drawn from other sources, or the evidence that is assumed to be part of a reader's own knowledge and experience."(p.12)
In Karen Horney's "The Distrust Between the Sexes," she attempts to explain the problems in the relationships between men and women. She writes that to understand the problem you must first understand that problems stem from a common background. A large amount of suspiciousness is due to people's intensity of emotions.
This is so in the case of climate change. Climate change is a controversial and complex topic that has not seen a victor in the debate it has become. Many scientists are perplexed as to how some do not accept the science of the issue. For this reason, many in science shy away from the media’s attention. However, the issue of climate change was not always seen in this perspective. At the turning point of the twentieth century, climate change was as foreign to humans as cancer was during the early twentieth century. The ...
Criticism is something that we all deal with daily and many of us believe that when we give criticism we are expertly doing so but as we receive criticism we tend to believe the other person is degrading us personally. Since criticism is mainly to judge merits and faults of a person or their actions, it is natural for us to feel defensive as we act the way we do based on the knowledge we have and we feel that the criticism questions our knowledge. Many of us may see criticism as such and act defensively towards it but according to an article called Giving and Receiving Criticism the author Sue Hadfield states, “Constructive criticism, however, can be helpful and lead to better working relations.” (Hadfield, 2013) With this in mind we can process that criticism can be used to give feedback to better ones position or knowledge in that which is being criticized. But how do we give criticism while staying in the favor of the criticized and when receiving criticism how do we differentiate between constructive and destructive criticism? Continuing in the article the author presents certain...