Since the introduction of reductionism, science has greatly changed. Reductionism has captured the attention of many scientists, as well as philosophers of science for the reason that it seeks to accomplish such a large goal. However, we are posed with the question of whether or not reductionism is capable of sufficing enough information for all scientific inquiry. I will argue that biology is not capable of effectively being reduced to physics and or chemistry mainly because it cannot provide the sufficient quantities of information needed, mainly due to issues caused by incommensurability due to varying scientific meanings (which will be discussed with reference to Kuhn and Feyerabend) as well as issues with overall understanding of scientific …show more content…
Kuhn’s example of paradigm changes would immediately refute Carnap’s argument. If scientists are in different paradigms, they do not recognize certain scientific terminology to have the same meaning in nature. (Kuhn 1962) Although Kuhn’s argument is not directed at reductionism, we can use his argument to say that Carnap’s defense for reductionism is not a sufficient defense and can easily be refuted. Feyerabend also criticized the reductionist view with an argument that would have been similar to Kuhn’s. He stated similarly that universal language is an issue due to similar terms with different meanings; this would immediately refute any chance we have of narrowing all sciences down to one universal language. (Feyerabend 1962) We cannot have a universal language because scientists cannot at all agree on mutual definitions, likely because they are in two different paradigms and have different understandings of the terminology. Deriving theories from biology and reducing them into chemistry/physics would make it impossible to translate the theories into chemical or physical language properly. This is because of the biological terms seeming similar to chemical/physical terms yet meaning something different – none of the information that would be reduced would be reduced as accurate biological information as it would have its meanings and theories misinterpreted due to the collision of terms in sciences. In other words, the definition of something chemical related may not have the same meaning when defining it in physical or biological terms. This shows that biology is not comparable to physics and chemistry as their definitions, languages, etc. do not match up. Such an overlap would cause the field of sciences to become virtually dysfunctional because nothing would be clear – there would be constant confusion,
Genetics relies on chemistry to explain phenomena related to the field. The structure of DNA relies on chemistry. In fact, when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they did so by building models based on the laws of chemistry. Chemistry also relates heavily to the structure and function of one of the main products of DNA: protein.
Passer, M., Smith, R., Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., & Vliek, M. (2009). Psychology; Science of Mind and Behaviour. (European Edition). New York.
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.
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
Charles, Marilyn. "A Beautiful Mind." American Journal of Psychoanalysis Mar 2003. Vol.63, Iss. 1; pg. 21: ProQuest. MIT Libraries, Cambridge, MA. 8 Dec. 2004 http://www.proquest.com.
Davis, Tom. The Theories of the Mind Lectures. Ed. G. Baston. Birmingham University. 9 Nov. 2000
McGinn, Colin (1996) The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., Oxford UP.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
This essay will discuss differences in motives which have driven ancient and modern science, arguing that 17th century alterations of power structures led to the ultimate division between modern and ancient science and the eruption of modern science as it is today. Comparisons will be drawn regarding knowledge accessibility, prevailing philosophies and ideologies, and the relationship between science and the church.
Though many people fail to realize it, chemistry is a subject essential to everyday life, due to the fact that it is the branch of science that deals with the identification of the substances of which matter is composed. But what we must understand is that everything in the universe is composed of matter, hence chemistry is necessary in learning more about the world and universe that we live in. There are many careers and fields affiliated with chemistry that people pursue to learn more about the composition of the universe, but for now, let us examine the logistics of three of these careers. These three careers involving chemistry are geochemistry, environmental chemistry, and chemical engineering.
Chemistry is the most fascinating science to me. Chemistry applies to all things in the universe; living or non-living. Everything is made of elements which are made up of atoms of a certain atomic number. Thereafter I took AP Chemistry, I knew I had to choose a career in the field of chemistry. I understand and enjoy learning about chemistry. Chemistry is important, interesting, and ever expanding. Therefore, I must pursue a career in Chemistry.
Gross, Richard. PSYCHOLOGY: The science of the mind and behaviour. Hodder and Stoughton Educational. 1992.
Feldman, Robert S. "States of Consciousness." Essentials of Understanding Psychology. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 133-52. Print.
...o lakes and killing fish and the harmful chemicals we breathe from plastics. Therefore, scientists all over the world study organic compounds for research to get as many benefits as they can and to stop the harmful effects of using organic compounds. Scientists test how food should be stored and prepared so we do not get sick. Nutritionists study the proper diet for maximum chemical processes in the body. Environmental scientists show how human activity affects the environment. Forensic scientists test samples from people, plants and soil to find contamination or poisons. Even in the jungles of the Amazon, the people know how to use organic compounds to heal sicknesses. They may not call it organic chemistry, but essentially it is the same thing, the study of carbon compounds. As long as there is life on earth, there will always be a place for organic chemistry.