The Succession of Scientific facts

755 Words4 Pages
Segments of each discipline discussed in class contributed to a natural succession of scientific advancement. The work of many great minds was challenging and thought provoking by its own merit. Beginning with Francis Galton who helped make the stage for sensible anticipation. Galton was a biometrician, who wrote on the subject of natural inheritance. This work proposed an idea that was practical and sensible concerning the link between heredity and offspring. By asserting some resounding rules such as two parents contributing half of their heredity to their children, Galton concluded that each generation would deduce exponentially to each subsequent generation. As a result, this theory was perpetuated, debated, and analyzed by the scientific community that eventually established a deeper understanding of life its self.
After Mendel’s work with determining heritable traits, several individuals used the concepts to their own advantage. Theodor Eimer is a prime example of a man who attempted to use Mendel’s concepts to portray his view of Organic Evolution. Eimer argued that heredity is distinctive and dominant over the expression of living organism and their origins. Essentially, every entity that exists had its own innate traits that translated from only individuals of a particular kind. Eimer concluded by saying that there was a perfect conformity in the direction of ancestry and thought that would deconstruct the Darwin doctrine of natural selection.
As time passed public health was inevitably another facet that would be influenced by the research findings in late 18th and early 20th century. Unfortunately the implementations were crude and callas as to proposed that some humans were superior to other by order of heredity. One...

... middle of paper ...

...uable and/or marketable then it could attract the financial support of governments, business’s, even wealth individuals that could profit off the findings of a given project. A scientist being backed financially by an organization or particular person(s) may definitely have had strings attached to an agenda that may not have been for the purest of intentions but never the less it got research moving. If a theory works then it’s a good science in that it’s practical and functional. So good ideas that worked were kept in the scientific community because the reasoning stood up with empirical evidence. With each succession of truths relating to phenomena, it was reasonable to keep the truth claims that were conducive to valuable incite. The value of any science is determined by the advantage it gives in understanding how and possibly why nature works the way it does.
Open Document