According to Tomas Kuhn, “normal science means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice” (Pajares ). The achievements that Kuhn defines as paradigms help the scientific community develop a scientific method to resolve puzzles. Particular puzzles that paradigms fail to solve and eventually lead to paradigm shifts are called anomalies. Since Kuhn first introduces the relations of these three terms to philosophy of science in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” scientific communities have improved their understandings of science and society. By describing two different paradigms of Paley and Lamarck on organic change in the early nineteenth century, Kuhn’s paradigms can further demonstrate its efficient way to articulate scientific assumptions and understand the scientific change.
In William Paley’s paradigm, the world is perfectly designed by a benevolent God who purposefully created everything and “superadded pleasure to animal sensations” (RP 47 ). Paley strongly believes the existence of a God who is wise and benevolent enough to create everything on earth with happiness and a purpose. For Paley, science is a tool to complement the greatness of religion and prove the importance of Design (RP 46). In order to support his paradigm, Paley illustrates the contrivance and work of God in nature with the methodological assumption of First Cause (the belief in the existence of God) and Final Cause (the belief that a God creates an object with a purpose). Additionally, the metaphysical assumption of a close, active God underlies the paradigm as a premise that influences e...
... middle of paper ...
...d for centuries. On the other hand, Lamarck challenges this traditional thought and brings about a new theory that contains controversial ideas. With this provocative attitude, he demonstrates his intent to challenge the achievements for centuries and cause scientific change leading to paradigm shifts.
Comparing Paley’s and Lamarck’s paradigms show how Kuhn’s paradigm can be used to compare and explain different paradigms. With the examples of observation, assumptions, and anomalies, two paradigms clearly demonstrate their ability to solve puzzles as well as their potential influence on understanding of society. The Kuhn’s paradigm model helps understand the changes in scientific perspectives and the course of European society. The use of this paradigm model can provide an opportunity to explain current scientific paradigms and assist in developing new paradigms.
The conclusion as stated before but more simplified is, nature has a design, and that the architect of this design is God himself. This is the purpose of the argument as a whole. His entire drive for this argument seemed to convince others that there is a higher being with a higher power. Paley attempted to convince and bring the ath...
Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift. Mr. Bawazer offers a strong case. As an example from Mr. Kuhn’s theory we can understand how the different dog breeds evolved from the wolf. Depending on what type of breed you want from a hunting dog to a family dog breed, you can alter the DNA by letting the alpha dog to continue to breed or not. Next, we can realized that everything in this planet contains molecules or genes that can be altered. We also recognize that paradigm science and paradigm shift is a circular state not a steady line. This means that we have to adjust to what is going on the present time and expand from it, but always remember how it was done in the past. Thomas Edison well said “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” The only way to change science is to continue to try without being afraid of failing. If different engineers and industries unites forces to promote the use of natural resources rather than inventing new ones and also with the help of the government of going “green” will definitely help the environment to prevent
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
Modern scientific trends developed from philosophies of the past, they are part of the philosophical path that a philosopher must walk when undergoing self-reflection. They are a presentation of modern-day prejudices, which the philosopher must seek to understand and overcome
The claims of rationality and the so-called scientific approach of the atheists and agnostics have been debunked. In the coming pages we shall see that both in the creation of the universe, in things created within the universe and in the creation of living beings, an intelligently designed process is going on, and we shall demonstrate that the objections of agnostics and skeptics to this assertion are merely delusions.
William Paley’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
During the 1800th century, William Paley, an English philosopher of religion and ethics, wrote the essay The Argument from Design. In The Argument from Design, Paley tries to prove the existence of a supreme being through the development of a special kind of argument known as the teleological argument. The teleological argument is argument by analogy, an argument based on the similarities between two different subjects. This essay purposefully attempts to break down Paley’s argument and does so in the following manner: firstly, Paley’s basis for the teleological argument is introduced; secondly, Paley’s argument is derived and analyzed; thirdly, the connection between Paley’s argument and the existence of a supreme being is made; and lastly, the supreme being is compared to the supreme being in Western Philosophy, God.
In chapter three there is a somewhat disparate side of the ontological argument. It centers on the nature of God than the meaning of him. Particularly, this chapter centers on the early quality of God that is the fact that he needs to exist. Inanimate things, supplementary living things, and humans are ...
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
Dr. William Lane Craig supports the idea of existence of God. He gives six major arguments, in order to defend his position. The first argument is quite fare, Craig says that God is the best reason of existence of everything. He gives the idea, that the debates between all the people, cannot reach the compromise, because the best explanation of the reasons of existence of everything is God, and nothing can be explained without taking Him into consideration. The second argument of Craig is from a cosmological point of view: he says that the existence of the universe is the best proof of the existence of God. Because, the process of the creation of the universe is so ideally harmonious, that it seems impossible to appear accidentally. The third argument is about the fine tuning of the universe. The universe is designed in such a way that people always have aim of life, and the life of people and the nature are interconnected. The fourth argument of Dr. Craig is about the morality: God is the best explanation of the existence of the morality and moral values in people’s lives. The...
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
Proceeding that, Paley introduces his second argument that constructs upon believing in the design of the watch. The stone’s design is not of much interest as that of the watch. Since there exists a design, there must be a designer for that matter. Thirdly, the purpose of some parts of the watch might remain unknown; however, the more complex the parts are, the more likely that one would believe in a designer. Since the stone is still and simple, one would ignore the creation in comparison to that of the watch. In addition to all, the completion of the material provokes the thoughts of the designer’s existence. On the other hand, the last three arguments presented summarise in the purpose of believing in a watchmaker. If one does not believe, he will remain unanswered, filled with void, shocked and scared of the unknown. The meaning of the watch is power of a
ABSTRACT: Curiously, in the late twentieth century, even agnostic cosmologists like Stephen Hawking—who is often compared with Einstein—pose metascientific questions concerning a Creator and the cosmos, which science per se is unable to answer. Modern science of the brain, e.g. Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind (1994), is only beginning to explore the relationship between the brain and the mind-the physiological and the epistemic. Galileo thought that God's two books-Nature and the Word-cannot be in conflict, since both have a common author: God. This entails, inter alia, that science and faith are to two roads to the Creator-God. David Granby recalls that once upon a time, science and religion were perceived as complementary enterprises, with each scientific advance confirming the grandeur of a Superior Intelligence-God. Are we then at the threshold of a new era of fruitful dialogue between science and religion, one that is mediated by philosophy in the classical sense? In this paper I explore this question in greater detail.
In this essay I discuss why there is proof that there is a supernatural being known as God, who has created everything we know and experience.