1. “There is no such thing as a neutral question.” Evaluate the statement with reference to two areas of knowledge. As humans, we ask questions to satisfy our natural curiosity and inclination to gain knowledge. However, the type of questions we ask and the way in which we ask them can greatly affect the results or answers we get. My understanding of the word ‘neutral’ is that it implies impartiality or non-alignment therefore leading me to define a neutral question as one which when asked does not suggest that the questioner has an answer in mind or make it obvious what the expected answer is. But how is this possible? How can we not have any preconceived idea of the knowledge we hope to acquire from a question when we ask it? The claim that …show more content…
Often, natural scientists come upon scientific findings without intention to do so. Dr. Alexander Fleming’s curiosity intrigued him to isolate and study the mould on contaminated samples of flu culture. The tests he conducted to understand the mould, which he would later classify as belonging to the genus penicillium, were open minded and neutral as he sought to understand what the mould was and why it was lethal to the flu culture. (“Accidental Discoveries”) My personal acquisition of knowledge in the natural sciences through school has been a similar experience. With no knowledge of certain aspects of chemistry for example, periodicity, means that in the beginning when I asked for explanations, they were open ended, neutral questions because I had no prior knowledge of the subject. After studying the topic for a while, my questions were close- ended questions asked to confirm my guess of possible explanations. So I think that neutral questions do exist in the natural sciences because when exploring a new subject, scientists have to be as impartial as possible. However, it becomes very difficult to ask neutral questions when they are familiar with the subject area because they have prior knowledge of
What apparent problem or difficulty or surprising fact is the discussion meant to solve or allay?
Albert Einstein declared, “The most important thing is to never stop questioning.” Questions help extend our knowledge by opening our minds to change and new possibilities. The excerpt talks about the mindset that scientists need to become successful and the process they go through to make new discoveries. In The Great Influenza, John M. Barry educates citizens of the everyday challenges that scientists face through utilizing rhetorical questions, cause and effect, and contrast.
According to positivists, "the fundamental base of inquiry, the source of confirming or disconfirming instances, is a set of .
The process of scientific inquiry begins with the motivation to uncover the answer to a question. It then requires extensive research to gather all the information that could possibly be useful. Finally, one must put all the pieces of the puzzle together to make sense of all the information gathered and interpret it to answer the question. The last step is to write out what has been learned and publicize it to spread the new knowledge. There are many other factors, however, that also come into play in the process of scientific inquiry.
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. As a result, I would say that science is partially subjective and partially objective.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
By incorporating NOS in science textbooks, not only we will be addressing the problem suggested by Sutton (1998), but, also, as teachers, we will be reinforcing scientific expertise needed in to develop active citizens while attaining two roles in scientific understandings that are “knowing how” science was established and “knowing that” which is constituted of facts and scientific knowledge (Bellous &Siegel, 1991). Finally, Sutton’s chapter provides a concise framework for teachers and research scholars to view science teaching and scientific knowledge from a different perspective. Such that the science content and teaching should be viewed from the scientists’ perspective to the extent that collaboration between scientific community is needed to reach such
White, T. I., & Rauhut, N. C. (n.d.). Basic Issues Philosophy (pp. 64-75). N.p.: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Critical thinking is a very important concept in regards to science, especially since science and the concepts therein have been fluctuating from the time of their origins. As stated in Kirst-Ashman’s book;
4. “Without application in the real world, the value of knowledge is greatly diminished.” Consider this claim with respect to two areas of knowledge.
Question 3: “imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there will ever be to know and understand “(Albert Einstein) Do you agree?
some of the science is known to be true, some is an educated guess, and some is
Cole, K. C., and Sue Giddings. "Is There Such a Thing as Scientific Objectivity?" DISCOVER Sept. 1985: 76-78. Web.
The opinions of experts are handy in the search of knowledge; however their opinions are a double edge sword – The knowledge of experts act as building blocks to our own thoughts, but sometimes the experts may be incorrect, and their beliefs lead seekers down the wrong path. Experts often do this when new ideas are purposed. They may disprove newer ideas in order to stay relevant, like when evolution was purposed. The benefits that experts can provide in the search for knowledge can be important but often times are more a hindrance. Experts act in some ways as a neighbor shouting to you as you walk around the block but are not as fundamental emotion, sense, perception, and language in the search for knowledge. The opinions are useful when reasoning especially in regards to the History, Human Science and Natural Science Areas of Knowledge.