The Rationality of Scientific Discovery: The Aspect of the Theory of Creation
ABSTRACT: In order to understand the rationality of scientific creation, we must first clarify the following: (1) the historical structure of scientific creation from starting point to breakthrough, and then to establishment; (2) the process from the primary through the productive aspects of the scientific problem, the idea of creation, the primary conjecture, the scientific hypothesis, and finally the emergence of the genetic structure establishing the theory; and (3) the problem threshold of rationality in scientific creation. Given that the theory of scientific creation adopts the descriptive viewpoint of rationality, it therefore establishes rational principles such as the following: (1) a superlogical mode of thinking; (2) an analysable genetic structure which consists of the primary and productive aspects (including experiential facts, background theory, operational means, higher irrational factors, etc.); (3) a means of recourse to the effect of incubation of a higher idea; (4) a movement in thinking from generality to particularity; and (5) the replacement of irrational by rational factors.
1.The Logic Theory of Scientific Discovery and the Irrational Theory of Scientific Discovery
The modern forms of the logic theory of scientific discovery have abandoned the discovery model of pure logic, and search after the discovery logic in a broad sense. Both the retrospective inference which Hanson initiated and the inductive which Maclauin elucidated deserve serious attention among them [1]. Their common charateristics are to resort to the irrational factors, at the same time, they are unable to expound the process of emergence of the new ideas. In addition, the rationality of discovery is summed up into "the algorithm" or "the patterns of discovery" is still put forward, and it holds that it is according to the overeconomical principle that the discovery of the scientific laws discovers "the patterns" in experience and data [3]. They are both the different expression of discovery logic, the former is a kind of logic of problem solving, the latter is actually an inductive inference. Their common shortcomings are the simplification and to be unable to reveal how the new ideas occur in the process of scientific creation.
The irrational theory of discovery advocates "the method of bisection" of discovery and verification and holds that the scientific discovery is "the intuitional result like poetry" (Popper), and doesn't thoroughly have the possibility of epistemological research (L. Laudan) [4]. The problems of scientific discovery should be studies by psychology and sociology.
There are different viewpoints on the question “what is the universe made of?” I think that both science and religion offer their own explanation to this topic and they sometimes overlap, which creates contradictions. Therefore, I do not agree with Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial, which claims that there is a fine line separating science from religion. That being said, I think the conflict between science and religion is only in the study of evolution. It is possible for a scientist to be religious if he is not studying evolution, because science is very broad and it has various studies. In this essay, I will talk about the conflict between religion and science by comparing the arguments from Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. I argue that science and religion do overlap but only in some area concerning evolution and the cosmic design. Furthermore, when these overlaps are present it means that there are conflicts and one must choose between science and religion.
... middle of paper ... ... We can trace the origins of modern scientific trends back to Greek primal establishment. From the simplistic Socratic approach of ‘Who am I?’
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
7. John Wisdom, Paradox and Discovery (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1969), p. ix.
Throughout history there has always been discussions and theories as to how the universe came to be. Where did it come from? How did it happen? Was it through God that the universe was made? These philosophies have been discussed and rejected and new theories have been created. I will discuss three theories from our studies, Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, Aquinas’s Design Argument, and Paley’s Design Argument. In this article, I will discuss the arguments and what these arguments state as their belief. A common belief from these three theories is that the universe is not infinite, meaning that the universe was created and has a beginning date. Each believe that there was a God, deity, or master creator that created the universe for a reason. They also believe that
The Broadway Fountain of Madison, Indiana did not originate in Indiana. “The fountain was originally exhibited in Philadelphia in 1876 (U.S.).” “After the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition closed, the Madison Lodge of Independent Order of Odd Fellows purchased the fountain and presented it to the city in 1884 (U.S.).” What makes this fountain so special? “It is one of only four remaining of this style in the world (U.S.).”
Dimensionally, the fountain is grand. It stands at 26.6 feet high and is 35.6 feet wide. The work put into the fountain is clearly seen in its beautiful design. The fountain features the Odd Fellows symbol of three intertwined links decorate each surface on the fountain’s octagonal base. Four tritons surround the base, with each creature holding a shell horn that spouts water. A classically robed female figure holding a rod sits atop the highest basin” (“The”). The fountain’s French designer J.P. Victor Andre was an employee of the Janes, Kirtland Iron Company of Morrisania, N.Y., the area now known as the Bronx. In the Janes Kirtland Iron Company's catalog, the fountain was merely referred to as Model Number 5. For this fountain specifically, it is said that Andre referred to the neoclassical design of two European masterpieces, the Place-de-la-Concord in Paris or Crystal Palace Exhibition in London (Wright).
In the downtown area of Madison, Indiana, sits an extraordinary structure that seems to capture attention from all walks of life. The Broadway Fountain was created by a French artist named J.P. Victor Andre. Andre obviously knew what he was doing when he was asked to construct this fountain because of the impressive composition it has and with its mesmerizing size. “Some have suggested that Andre’s neo-classical design was inspired by the famous fountain in Place-de-la-Concord in Paris, or by a fountain exhibited at the Crystal Palace Exhibition in London in 1851” (Wright).
The Broadway Fountain is a beautiful fountain that has become an extremely popular attractions in Madison, Indiana. The fountain was created by J.P. Victor Andre. The fountain was originally labeled as “No. 5” and was displayed in a catalog created by a company named Kirtland Iron Company. The original price of the fountain was at an astonishing price of only $2500.00. The fountain stands 26.6 feet high and 35.6 feet in width. It has two basins and a reflecting pool. The top portion has a robed female holding a rod and the second portion has two large birds. The base of the fountain has four horn-blowing tritons that shoot water from the horns. People have reported that the design of the fountain resembles a neo-classical theme. The fountain was created to resemble a popular fountain in Paris. That fountain was displayed during the Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1851 in London. However, the fountain has not always been considered a landmark for Madison.
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,
Consequently I propose an empiricism approach to science. Empiricism takes empirical adequacy (not truth) as the goal of science and when it accepts a theory it accepts it as empirically adequate.
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.
The purpose of this experiment is to try to find the original temperature of the hot water in the heater using the 60 degrees C thermometer. Use your 60°C thermometer, and any materials available in your laboratory, to determine the temperature of the water in the coffee pot. During this experiment we calculated the original temperature of a heater after it had been cooled down, and we did this by measuring hot, cold, and warm water, with a thermometer that had tape covering 60 degrees and up. When preformed each of these experiments with each temperature of water, plugging them into the equation (Delta)(Ti – hot – Tf) T Hot x Cp x Mass(Cold) = (Delta)(Tf – Ti – Cold) T Cold x Cp x Mass(Hot)(d
The hotel industry performs within a saturated market, driven by customer loyalty and competitive pricing to stand-out. This competitive nature makes it extremely important to capitalise on strengths while improving on
Powerful Ad Campaign Shows That Facebook Likes Don’t Help, 2013. Available at: [5 April 2014]