Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Philosophy of science essay
History, philosophy and methodology of science
What is the theory of eugenics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Philosophy of science essay
Toulmin, Hull, Campbell, and Popper have defended an "Evolutionary-Analogy" view of scientific evaluative practice. In this view, competing concepts, theories and methods of inquiry engage in a competitive struggle from which the "best adapted" emerge victorious. Whether applications of this analogy contribute to our understanding of science depends on the importance accorded the disanalogies between natural selection theory and scientific inquiry. Michael Ruse has suggested instead an "Evolutionary-Origins" view of scientific evaluative practices in which scientific inquiry is directed by application of epigenetic rules that have become encoded in homo sapiens in the course of evolutionary adaptation. Among these rules are "formulative theories that are internally consistent," "seek severe tests of theories," (Popper) and "achieve a consilience of inductions" (Whewell). As a descriptive theory of science, the "Evolutionary-Origins" view is prima facie inconsistent with evidence that human beings often make decisions that violate the "genetically-hard-wired rules." As a normative-prescriptive philosophy of science, the "Evolutionary-Origins" view is limited by the fact that in biological evolution, adaptation to present pressures may be achieved at the expense of a loss of adaptability (the capacity to respond creatively to future changes in environmental conditions).
In the 1980s, the hitherto-dominant normative-prescriptive conception of philosophy of science became the subject of a debate which continues to the present time. Some philosophers of science suggested that the proper aim of the discipline is the description of scientific evaluative practice.
There is a modest version and a robust version of descriptive philosophy of science. The aim of the modest version is the historical reconstruction of actual evaluative practice. Given that scientists preferred one theory (explanation, research strategy...) to a second, the modest descriptivist seeks to uncover the evaluative standards whose application led to this preference. For instance, the modest descriptivist may seek to uncover the standards implicit within such evaluative decisions as Aristotle's rejection of pangenesis, Newton's rejection of Cartesian Vortex Theory, or Einstein's insistence that the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete. Pursuit of a modest descriptive philosophy of science may require a certain amount of detective work, particularly for episodes in which the pronouncements of scientists and their actual practice do not coincide.
The conclusions reached by modest descriptive philosophy of science are subject to appraisal by reference to standards applicable to historical reconstruction in general. There is no distinctively philosophical task of appraisal. The modest descriptivist is a historian with a particular interest in evaluative practice.
Hatfield, Gary. "Science, Certainty, and Descartes", in PSA 1988: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Volume Two. 249-262. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1988.
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
Keith Henson a writer in evolutionary psychology once said that “Evolution acts slowly. Our psychological characteristics today are those that promoted reproductive success in the ancestral environment.” Evolution was first introduced by a naturalist by the name of Charles Darwin. Darwin had written an autobiography, at the age of 50, On the Origin of Species (1859) explaining how species evolve through time by natural selection; this theory became known as Darwinism. “Verlyn Klinkenborg, who writes editorials and vignettes on science and nature for the “New York Times”” (Muller 706) questions Darwin’s theory in one of his essays he wrote called Darwin at 200: The Ongoing Force of His Unconventional Idea. Both articles talk about the theory of Darwinism, but the authors’ use different writing techniques and were written in different time periods. Darwin himself writes to inform us on what the theory is, where as Klinkenborg goes on to explain why Darwinism is just a theory. Today, evolution is still a very controversial topic among many. It comes up in several topics that are discussed everyday such as in politics, religion and education.
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
Consequently I propose an empiricism approach to science. Empiricism takes empirical adequacy (not truth) as the goal of science and when it accepts a theory it accepts it as empirically adequate.
Direct radiation occurs at the time of the explosion and can be very intense, but its range is limited. For large nuclear weapons, the range of concentrated direct radiation is less than the range of lethal blast and thermal radiation effects. Seeing that there was a total collapse of society in the story, it is safe to assume that this was a very large weapon, so I suspect that the city fell and succumbed to the weapon quickly – leaving behind the last two stages, radiation and radioactive fallout.
Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...
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...
Believe it or not, Geometry is actually useful! All our lives we have been told that we would use this in our lives and we have thought “no we won't.” but we do use it in life. Geometry is used for home decorating. Also architects use it for home building.
Editorial Staff. (2012, February 24). The national institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/Pages/default.aspx
With his method of radical skepticism, Descartes escaped a chain of assumptions built on dogmatic “results” and laid a new foundation for science rooted in observation and experiment. Dissatisfied with the qualitative evidence of Aristotelian syllogisms, Descartes sought to avoid building on assumptions by promoting criticism and rigorous review of hypothesis, which could them be pieced together mathematically to develop scientific theory. While Descartes left a framework that continues to drive modern science, some of his most fervent beliefs presented in Discourse on the Method have been abandoned to make way for a pragmatic view of sciences role in explanation.
Natural science is largely based on the inductive process and empiricism, such as experimentation to produce knowledge. However depending on the subject of the matter and the procedure of the experiment it may not be “morally approved” and may be illegal at times. Therefore implications of these regulations and perceptions will...
Science is used by people every day whether or not they realize it or not. When we have a problem we unknowingly use the scientific method to resolve the problem. The scientific method is a step by step process that is used to discover answers to scientific questions. We identify what the problem is first by observing a situation that occurs that we are not expecting, identify what the problem is and then form a hypothesis to resolve the problem. A hypothesis is created by asking an “if-then” question identifying the steps that will be used to resolve the problem. The independent variable or the steps that will be used to solve the problem follows the “if” statement. The dependent variable or the outcome expected from the experiment follows the “then” statement (Hazen, 2011, p. 9). We test our hypothesis by conducting an experimenting and then examining the results or data produced by the experiment. If the results from our experiment resolve our problem we have proven our theory. If the results do not reduce the problem we go back and create a new hypothesis and experiment again until we find a solution (Hazen, 2011, p. 8).
This hunger for definitive answers allows us to make formal discrepancies between science and philosophy, but it would be foolish to ignore philosophy for science’s sake. Furthermore, if science needs philosophy, shouldn’t scientific finding serve as a springboard for philosophical reflections regarding the world and