“Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” is Bas van Fraassen’s attack on the positive construction of science. He starts by defining scientific realism as the goal of science to provide a “literally true story of what the world is like;” and the “acceptance of a scientific theory” necessitates the “belief that it is true”. This definition contains two important attributes. The first attribute describes scientific realism as practical. The aim of science is to reach an exact truth of the world.
The method by which we gather this knowledge and the ability of the knowledge to accurately explain why things work the ways they do are equally important. Moreover, with science we are trying to bring an order into, a chaotic world. With giving things names we take the mystery out of it and it makes it less scary for us. Also, this gained knowledge needs to be continually compared to the real world to test and improve its accuracy and demonstrate its explanatory power (Popper 1988). I agree with Popper (1988), who stated that only those propositions that research may prove false should be considered as scientific (the principle of falsification).
Karl Popper is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper outlined in his work, Realism and the Aim of Science, the school of realism and made his own arguments to back up the ideas of realism. Popper views the search for truth as “one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery”, just like realism does. He also is a proponent of the concept that science is progressive in nature just like realism claims. Popper was also a fan of the method of falsification, which was not a way to reject or get rid of the original scientific theory, but simply to improve it.
In this sense, the inductive reasoning used in the scientific method is justified, as our understanding of scientific truths and all scientific advancement relies on its existence. While Popper’s qualms about inductive reasoning appear to be justified, it nonetheless proves itself to be the less-problematic approach to scientific learning. This approach need not be flawless for it to be functional in its practical application in the world, and for us to justify its continued use. It simply needs to allow progress, which Popper’s overly-cautious deductive approach evidentially does not allow, at least not on a comparable scale.
In response, scientists and some philosophers contend that science is the best knowledge we have about the world. I argue that science is limited by its form. Science has no object that derives from the human form. Everything that is incomparable to the dimension of the human body is reducible to notions that are commensurable to that body. This phenomenologically clarifies some of the most important discoveries in contemporary science.
Introduction to the Scientific Method The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. I.
In this case, a convincing theory is the one that has more arguments to support its validity than arguments that oppose. As stated before in the definition, theories are never completely true. So we ask ourselves, why do we consider some theories as completely accurate? One possible reason for this is the scientific method in which these theories are tested, this methods are co... ... middle of paper ... ...understand both its positive and negative aspects. This is the way in which we understand what is it of both natural and human science theories that might make them convincing to certain people and why is it that some are considered as facts even if they are only bare theories.
Popper and Kuhn have proposed strictly theoretical ideas -- It remains to be seen whether a concrete example of scientific resear... ... middle of paper ... ...se pressures? The critenia for good science is jmportant so that the scientist remembers not to cave in to these pressures, and the layperson remembers that scientists can be fallible. Works Cited Gould, Stephen Jay. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W.W. Norton, c1989.
Feyerabend was right to point out the fact that Kuhn might be ignoring individual scientists in his pursuit for a structure of science. While Feyerabend was concerned with what happens to the morals of scientists and Kuhn was concerned with the general structure, I want to explore what will have the most utility for both science and scientists. This will be a restructuring of the rewards system. Merton claimed that the basic currency for scientific reward is recognition (Godfrey-Smith 123). He argues that the best reward is being the first person to come up with an idea.
What I wish to do in this essay is to tie together this concept of perception and the mind with what we have read in Text and Critics, as well as to discuss the need for science to find "reality" and "knowledge." But, first, we must understand what Dennet means by “our minds being as real as our dreams”. Dennet's point is profound and a point that should not be dismissed as a whim of a philosopher but, instead, a scientific reality-- not the construct of a man's subjective mind. One is led to believe that the best way to describe the mind as an illusion is to describe it in terms of dreams. When we sleep, our external sensory input is shut down.