More handpicked essays just for you.
Scientific inquiry method
Assignment on scientific research methodology
Assignment on scientific research methodology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Second Paper
“I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects
According to Philo Cleanthes’s argument of design does not work because it is a bad comparison. Arguing that the universe is like a machine as imaginative as it may seem, does not work, because it is a comparison of a part of a whole and that is problematic because there is no way to compare a part of something, to that something is part of that something is completely unknown. By saying “observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?” in page 24, Philo reveals a fatal weakness in Cleanthes’s comparison. Just like it is impossible to know the generation of a human being by observing how his hair grows, it is impossible to understand the universe in its entirety by understanding how a machine. Philo contends that Cleanthes’s comparison may be too narrow for a universe with so much diversity, in page 25 “When nature has so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe; can we imagine that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a
Philo on the other hands contends that Cleanthes cannot objectively make that claim. Philo recognizes the problems that Cleanthes’s argument of design brings by being a priori, he recognizes how the causes and effects affect the overall argument made by Cleanthes and is able to pin point where it was this was problematic, that order may not necessarily exist due to an intelligent designer, and that since humans where not all knowing like God there were some aspects that Cleanthes argues are just impossible to know with their limited intellect. In part 2 Philo effectively communicates to Cleanthes that his claims could be reduced to speculation as opposed to being regarded as matters of
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.
One of the key questions raised by Rupert Sheldrake in the Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, is are we more than the ghost in the machine? It is perfectly acceptable to Sheldrake that humans are more than their brain, and because of this, and in actual reality “the mind is indeed extended beyond the brain, as most people throughout most of human history have believed.” (Sheldrake, Seven Experiments 104)
There is always change In the world that either changes the world in a good way or may go bad. When it comes to technology it is always the creator that makes technology good or bad. In the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the main character Victor Frankenstein creates a creature using galvanism, but as soon as he completes his life long dream he sees how horrid the creature is and abandons it to live and face the outside world alone. This causes the creature to become Victors worst nightmare. It was Victors actions that caused the chaos, because of his misusage of science and actions.
...ples ideas based on the operations of our own mind. For example, the idea of a unicorn is also a complex idea, along with God, while many of us have seen a picture of a unicorn someone had to invent the original idea of what a unicorn is without seeing a picture. The operations of our own mind have created this idea of God, which rebuts Descartes’ argument that we have knowledge on the external world because of God. Descartes would argue that Humes’ idea of God is natural and never derived from impressions. Hume’ consequently has the better argument claiming that idea of god is actually based on ideas of perfection and infinity is inferred from the ideas of imperfection and finitude.
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
.... Recent developments in quantum physics, biology and information science have put us in a position where we question the uniqueness of the causal-mechanical model of science. But these developments, even though sciences based on non-causal concepts might dominate in the culture, would not eradicate the causal way people have viewed the world and themselves, but only relegate the concept of cause to the realm of metaphor, a rhetorical way of putting things. The concept of cause then would no longer be a scientific concept, but would still be alive in the culture. What brings a change in the general worldview then? This would be the question I still have to ask.
Our awareness, our perception within nature, as Thomas states, is the contrast that segregates us from our symbols. It is the quality that separates us from our reflections, from the values and expectations that society has oppressed against itself. However, our illusions and hallucinations of nature are merely artifacts of our anthropocentric idealism. Thomas, in “Natural Man,” criticizes society for its flawed value-thinking, advocating how it “[is merely] a part of a system . . . [and] we are, in this view, neither owners nor operators; at best, [are] motile tissues specialized for receiving information” (56). We “spread like a new growth . . . touching and affecting every other kind of life, incorporating ourselves,” destroying the nature we coexist with, “[eutrophizing] the earth” (57). However, Thomas questions if “we are the invaded ones, the subjugated, [the] used?” (57). Due to our anthropocentric idealism, our illusions and hallucinations of nature, we forget that we, as organisms, are microscopically inexistent. To Thomas, “we are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts,” but rather “we are shared, rented, occupied [as] the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria” (1).
thereby alter life situations in the natural? What he found was that it is possible that the mind acts back on itself (as the brain) to cause physical and structural change.
... issues in science that the author addresses by showing us science and its negative aspects. Whether or not Frankenstein has created a monster or a creature worthy of human sympathy, understanding, and respect is always a situation that must remind us that there are always dangers in the misuse of many technological developments as well as of human abilities. Humans playing God must utilize their capabilities in ways that will deepen and enrich the lives of human beings keeping in mind that the effect of much of scientific advance can lead to an arrogant aping of God’s power and reject accept what nature or God brings. Therefore the act of playing God as man is created in the image and likeness of God is not the ability to create life, but is the moral responsibility of humans that echoes the moral responsibility of God as in the capacity to act wisely and in love.
Polkinghorne describes as “…see[ing] the world as creation is to believe that the mind of God lies behind its marvelous order and the will of God behind its fruitful history.” (555). He also believes that it is the human mind that makes the necessary and sometimes illogical leaps that has made science possible, and although science cannot explain the mind, it can be explained because humans are made in God’s image. These leaps are made so that humans can have some understanding of the world they live in, and even to see the universe as a creation and see the intelligent design woven into its fabric is not establishing that the divine being that created the universe plays with each part separately. Polkinghorne sees this as assuming God as a “grand Ordainer”, which does not control everything, but instead gives it the potential, within
In the above essay, I presented the opposing views of William Paley and Bertrand Russell on the design argument. I then compared and contrasted the arguments showing that the arguments mostly differed. Finally, I evaluated the two philosophers' arguments and concluded that Paley's design argument was stronger than Russell's argument against it because Paley developed the support for his claims more thoroughly.
(Put something here as an introduction) Philo grants to Cleanthes & Demea that there must be a cause for things to exist, and that it is common for men to refer
The argument from design discussion occurs in parts two through five of the Dialogues, and begins with Demea professing that what needs to be questioned is God’s nature, not his existence, since all three of the members already agree that God exists. He says that humans are weak and will never be able to understand God’s nature, stating “finite, weak, and blind creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence, and, conscious of our frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man to perceive” (Hume 607). By this, Demea means that understanding God’s nature is beyond the capacity of human understanding, and humans will never have a clear answer regarding it. Philo agrees with Demea on this idea, but also says that he does not assume that God is like humans in any way at all. To defend his argument, he says “Wisdom, thought, design, knowledge— these we justly ascribe to him, because these words are h...
It is evident that things do not come to exist out of just anything; each comes into being out of particular things—fruit from the tree, tree from the seed, seed from the fruit; bird from the egg, egg from the bird. It cannot be, therefore, that things come to exist out of nothing, out of what is not, for were that so, things could come to be out of anything. I am not convinced: yes, it is evident that some kinds of things have again and again come into being out of particular things; so, we might well argue that these things do not come into being out of nothing. But is it evident that all things are alike in this? Perhaps some things do come into existence out of nothing: the possibility still pesters physicists today. It is supposed necessary by the Epicureans that particular conditions of generation correspond with particular kinds of things, and that all things of every kind are alike in this—not a ridiculous supposition, but surely not evident. This, I should want to add, is not an ‘implicit appeal to the principle of sufficient reason’, for that would entail questions about what function corresponds to the conditions of generation—what function has the egg if not the generation of a bird? We might answer that eggs are a function of animal nutrition ...
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”.