The answer is scientists; therefore, I believe they have the responsibilities to educate the people about science in order for them not to feel afraid toward science. Bishop explain in his essay “Enemies of Promise” that scientists should do something about it to removed our fears, “science is the art of the possible, of the soluble” (239). However, Bishop also says that regardless of that there is still a feeling of fear toward science because science has been considered to be dangerous for some people. I do not think science is dangerous, in the contrary, I believe that science has contributed to cures for diseases. If scientists do not have knowledge to find cures for dise... ... middle of paper ... ... evolved a lot.
What is science? There are many definitions of science currently in use. These definitions share some basic similarities but can be contradictory as well depending on an individual’s personal beliefs and values (I will get back to this topic in my value of science paragraph). However, the most common statement is that “science is trying to explain observed phenomena to gather knowledge about how the world works” (Klemke et al. 1988; Ziman 1988, 2001).
Although Science is largely composed of observation, experiments and their results, it raises controversy because imagination and perspective play a key role in those interpretations. As we know that imagination and perspective vary with each person due to education, background, and experience; how is it possible that we can assign a concrete truth to such a varied conceptualization. Thus, we cannot formulate any concrete truth. In this sense I see Scientists more as Philosophers. Another issue I find when dealing with traditional scientific theories is that Science often fails to provide theories and explanations for phenomenon's that hold truth and validation in both a scientific context and the context of the human mind.
I learned that Science is filled with human values, and it matters to me because it means that Science is not broken. No, science is not broken. People are. Following one of my weird rational lines, I recognize how science and society share a relationship between transmitted values and the results we expect from science. The majority of psychology and biomedical researches cannot be replicated because their results are not true at all, P-values are being played as a puzzle, and scientists are just accommodated, working in appearances and developing money.
An example of a paradigm shift would be when it was discovered that Earth was not the centre of the universe and that the sun did not revolve around the earth. This was a widely held belief up until, and even after there was proof to show that these beliefs were held falsely. Kuhn argued that the way scientists choose what conceptual and theoretical framework (what "paradigm") they should apply in framing their scientific questions and in seeking to resolve scientific puzzles is necessarily heavily influenced by subjective factors, including prevailing social norms and conventions. This implies that scientific theories are subjective and therefore so is the “truth” they aim to show. Kuhn argued that an old scientific paradigm is occasionally displaced by a new one and that in some senses the scientist finds himself working in a “different world”.
The book is not providing explanation on what scientists did or how they did it. However, it offer explanations on how scientists think and how they make conclusions. In addition to the many topics explored, it is worth noting that there are also interesting tales behind some big discoveries in science which are an added attraction to this book. The Author, Dr Samir Okasha, a professor of philosophy of science at the Bristol University states that his aim of writing this book was to pass the philosophy of science in a way that can be understood by everyone. He also sought to pass his ideals in a manner that is free from complicated Jargon, with real world examples to enable all readers understand and
In our society science has always been prominent in our development and existence in one way or the other. We are surrounded by things we do not fully except, and sometimes not fully understand, and because of this in our current times a separation grows between the scientifically learned and the uneducated in science. In this essay I will discuss the overlapping effect and influence of the public understanding of science in the advancing world; As well as its prominent issues of the psychological outcomes in confrontational incidents involving opposing views in scientific relations. To help describe this complicated view of science I will be referring to the article written by Brian Wynne the Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. This article will help to focus down the definition of the public understanding of science, and will serve as the prime example in the understanding of the issues it causes.
Science and its connection to the outside world- that is, the social and political spheres -has several important implications. The values that society places upon various issues is one of the biggest factors in deciding what scientific research will pursue. Some, like Thomas Kuhn, have argued for the value-free ideal within science, and promoted the function of autonomous science. Others, such as Heather Douglas, put forth that science can (and should) be directly influenced by the values society while still maintaining its status as a source of new, reliable knowledge. These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct.
Karl Popper's Falsifiability Sir Karl Popper's lecture was very thought provoking concerning "where to draw the line." Unlike most people, the validity of the theory was not his concern as much as how that validity is determined. This is an issue that really does not get the attention that it deserves. Popper's claims concerning, "When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" and "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?"
At the same time, it is limited by the things it is based because if these basic assumptions are false, then the whole theory and method can gravely mislead us. Of course there are many other ways of thinking and searching for the truth, and maybe a combination of these will eventually lead us to the ultimate truth. We may never be able to find or comprehend the basic truths of the universe, if they exist at all, or we may have already found the ultimate truth, but just don't know it yet.