When the Scientist turns Philosopher

How does everything work? These are seminal questions that plagued our ancestors and currently plague us. Answering seemingly impossible questions is the role of science, specifically physics, in humanity. At the forefront of the quest to understand everything was Aristotelian physics. While in the future Aristotelian physics would turn out to be completely incorrect, his original ideas and theories were critical for developing modern science as we know it today.

The work of these scientist sometimes conflict each other and sometimes they support each other. Looking back as far as we can to the beginning of scientific thought by humans, there has always been changes to the way we see the world and to who agrees on how a particular process works. There are, however, a set of stated and unstated scientific principles known as the scientific method. Here is a brief example of the scientific method used to explore a scientific query or hypothesis: 1. Start by asking a question of the natural world 2.

Kuhn goes to great measures to classify this scenario as paradigm. In chapter two of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn states “(paradigms)...provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research,” (p.10). If this is what scientists agree upon as paradigm then it is obvious that science is in a crisis state. At the present time, scientific explanations vary depending on what part of science is being explored. Until there is an idea/theory that explains science as a whole, science will be in a crisis state.

Many philosophers of science and historians have certain prejudices that lead them to view alchemy as a “pseudo-science”. However, this black magic science is responsible for much of our understanding of modern day chemistry. Alchemy has definitely played a role in the growth and founding of science; it is what taught ancient chemists about what counts as an experiment and how to think about matter at its most basic level. By expanding into two different categories, one can see why alchemy should be considered an important science. The first category to consider is the equipment and techniques used by alchemists that have been passed on to the modern day scientist.

Generally, antirealists have emphasized historical evidence against the realist picture and made arguments for one form of instrumentalism or another. As it stands, it seems that the issue is irresolvable. Structural realism, a variant on scientific realism, is purported to address the antirealist criticism while maintaining a realist sensibility. Rather than focusin... ... middle of paper ... ... tension between these two strategies is what drives scientific progress. By testing the applicability of existing principles, and introducing new principles with broader domains of applicability, physicists aim at capturing more phenomena under fewer principles.

In this essay, the first part will focus on what is considered as evidence in science, how the evidence and truth changed following the cycle of paradigm shift and illustrate the factors that causing the truth being challenged with different examples. Evidence can be anything that used to prove an assertion. Evidence in science will be focused on this essay. Scientific evidences can be used to support or reject the hypothesis in science. The evidences are often found by different scientific methods.

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).

The two distinct methods consisted within the scientific method are the inductive and deductive processes. The two processes differ in mutual components that reasonably conclude that one of the general brands is more appropriate and fitting in reasoning experiments. These methods are not only used to provide insight into understanding important facts and statistics in science but many of the philosophies of reasoning are also used within everyday life. Effective scientific reasoning within science is imperative. In fact, it is defined by the Ancient Greeks as the golden rule of science.

Once the paradigm-shift is completed normal science returns under the new paradigm until new set of unexplainable facts arise. paradigms help scientific communities to bind their discipline in that they help the scientist to do several things. they help to create avenues fo inquiry, formulate questions, select methods with which to examine questions and define areas fo relevance. Kuhn writes “In the absence fo a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant” (Kuhn 15). what he was trying to show was that there must be a way to limit the direction of one’s research based on what is considered to be known from the past.

If policymakers desire to apply evidence-based policy there is a need for true facts. The knowledge provided by scientists is often considered as close to the truth due to the scientific method involved in reaching a conclusion. However, Staman and Slob (2012) point towards the viewpoints of Daniel Sarewitz, who believes that science can never reach a cohesive viewpoint. Jeroen Dijsselbloem confirms this by mentioning contradicting reports passing his desk ofte... ... middle of paper ... ...k3). With knowledge being socially determined it is necessary for scientists to include the society in the process of forming their conclusions.