Empiricism I will explain in the following paper why I believe that realism and instrumentalism are erroneous approaches to science and why empiricism seems to be the more valid approach. I believe that truth is relative to language. The word theory in greek means "to be in front of". Our science is limited by our language, because we use our language as a way to construct our world. We use our language and theories to paint over the world what we think exists and while we use that language to create that reality, we paint over other "realitites", which we don't acknowledge, because we know no better.
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.
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).
Instead of giving us a universal truth, like science, art can give us wisdom from different experiences. By looking at the arguments made above and carefully analyzing them, it is easy to say that science, art and religion as all ways of explaining the universe and the human behavior, but they do not necessarily convey the same message. While science may try to give us information to manipulate and understand the physical world, religion and art provide a more emotional and metaphysical understanding of the universe and human behavior.
These two approaches to science are at complete odds with each other, and so they both cannot be absolutely correct. This paper will analyze these two approaches to the value-free ideal for science and the necessity of science to function autonomously. According to Thomas Kuhn, after an issue is selected to be pursued by scientific research, the role of values (given by society) should diminish greatly if not completely. If the values of society come into play during this stage of scientific research, the outcome of that research could potentially be skewed or misinterpreted. As such, science performs its function best when isolated from outside influences such as social and/or political values.
This thesis emerged as a demanding question into what the imagination truly is. It is something spectacular, in how well it can seem to be known yet in actuality is not. We cannot scientifically dissect the imagination; thus turning to the arts to help provide a container for the imagination to be poured into. It was not coincidental that I came across James Hillman upon my personal, professional and educational turn to an inter-modal approach. After all, “Hillman taught us to be wary of literalism in psychology, political thought, and art.
Art can be linked with Natural science, where natural science seeks to provide knowledge, art seeks to represent knowledge, in a way which appeals to our senses, Cocteau (1918: 11) sums up this idea well saying, ‘Art is Science made clear’. In order to create a representation of crude reality, to express knowledge, art must be created. The methods in how knowledge in art is produced are not ethically considered, due to the fact that art is a representation of the crude reality. If ethics were considered when making art, then art would have a different meaning. Thus, Ethical judgements do not limit the methods available in the production of knowledge in both the arts and the natural science.
Philosophy can break the taciturn response and force the seeker to question why he or she wants an answer from society instead of finding the answer within him or herself. It can hone one’s critical thinking skills and allow for a deeper inspection and understanding of the pedigrees of these desires. In addition, philosophy creates suspicion within those who choose to participate in this deeper level of thinking. In modern society, many aspects of life are accepted without question, simply because of what we are taught. For example, in science, gravity is taught as fact, while in reality it is actually just a theory - specificall... ... middle of paper ... ...al tendencies can assist one to understand the reactions we experience when we face the instances of betrayal and being lied to.
Pseudoscience occurs when a topic that in itself is not scientific is treated as a science. Despite society’s general disregard for the demarcation point between science and non-science there are real, everyday consequences to accepting these fields into our scientific domain. So why are certain theories classified as scientific? On one hand there is an ignorance and apathy in regard to this demarcation, on the other hand pseudo-sciences are accepted as sciences because of the appeal they hold in intrigue and comfort. The situation is made more complicated by science that is practiced in an unscientific matter.
Also, I think Popperian might say Chalmers is wrong because his falsifiable in Popperian sense. Chalmers might be falsified if scientific knowledge is observed not reliable due to some experiment and observation might contain mistakes and we do not find them now. Furthermore, the Popperian might argue that science can not be prove but can justify the better theories or laws.1 We can justify which scientific laws or theories are better ones as there is falsified is found, or not scientific. When they are found falsified or not scientific, we can seek for novel bold hypot... ... middle of paper ... ...ative imagining can also have a space in science because it might be able to lead to the developments of new conjectures and advanced knowledge comes out due to this. The above explanations also against the idea that - 'science is objective' because I claimed that individual opinion and speculative imagining should be seen as a part of developing science knowledge.