In psychology, the six principles of scientific thinking are extraordinary claim, falsifiability, Occam razor, replicability, ruling hypotheses of rival, and correlation vs. causation. We know that gaining new knowledge always help the growth of our mind, but sometimes a claim may contradict what we have already known, then we need more persuasive evidences to prove this claim before we accept it. It is natural that people doubt something extraordinary and a very basic thinking skill that is known as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it can be presented as I did not come to class today and I tell my instructor that I ate bad seafood last night and had diarrhea, then she might believe me. If I tell her it was because an aerolite hit my house, but there is no one media reported this news, then she would not believe my claim because it is extraordinary in nature, and there is no extraordinary evidence. Secondly, if a claim is supported by persuasive evidences, it should be falsifiable as well. At least in theory there is an observation ...
...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.
Clifford’s arguments for this conclusion is that if we are gullible enough to believe something without evidence then we are not only harming our individual credibility and intellect but also polluting the rest of society...
Humans have inhabited the Earth for thousands of years and it is perceived by many that we are among the most intellectual species on this planet. Although having lived on this planet for so long, being able to distinguish fact from fiction has escaped the minds of many. People of today’s society are easily influenced by what is told to them instead of what can be proven. Believing in something that has no scientific evidence is not only absurd but can be classified simply as ignorance. Many of the erratic ideas that are believed by many today have originated in a time where superstition was more popular than science. These beliefs appear to be proven by science, but in reality are not valid and frequently confused with true psychology, this is called pseudoscience or psuedopyschology. These beliefs remain intact for many years primarily because those who choose to believe these psuedopyschologies are the ones who try to prove that they are in fact valid, and tend to ignore the evidence that proves them wrong.
concrete evidence that compels the reader to believe the validity of both side of the
In William James’s “Will to Believe,” there is a strong focus on amending William K Clifford’s argument surrounding the belief. According to Clifford, belief is completely reliant on evidence. Not only is it completely reliant on evidence but on “sufficient” evidence. James quoted Clifford’s summary of belief in section 2, stating that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” While James showed clear disagreement in Clifford’s assertion, his focus in defending the will to believe centered more on providing the individual with options while recommending the “genuine option” in terms of their will to believe.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
Scientific realism states that our knowledge of an object is acquired by the ideas created from our experience of it, not from direct perceptions. Our ideas are not the object itself but a representation of it. The theory states that the world is of mind-independent objects (people, animals, trees, and etc.). It also states that we cannot directly perceive external objects. What we perceive are the copies of the representations of the external objects. Such as what we view on the television are copies of their remote causes (such as a concert or people on a playing field), so the images (who are visual, auditory, and etc.) that are occurring in the mind represent (or when things are not working, misrepresent) the external physical objects.
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
Many times we have been in a dilemma whether to believe or not someone who tries to persuade us for something and very often by listening his arguments and by having enough evidence we finally manage to get out of the dilemma. Nevertheless sometimes we cannot be sure about an event because although there is enough evidence, our minds cannot be persuaded. An example to justify that is the existence of the Loch Ness monster, or as it is widely known “Nessie”.
Human beings’ belief systems don’t always work according to evidence. Belief is made up of
Generally, science is a hotly discussed and vehemently debated topic. It is difficult to achieve consensus in science, considering the fact that ideas are diverse about even science definition, leave alone the true interpretations and meaning of scientific experiments, philosophies and discoveries. However, these arguments, disagreements as well as continuous trials to find a better reasoning, logic and explanation are exactly what have always been driving science progress from art to art form. It is worth noting that, in Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction, the Author-Samir Okasha explore various way of looking at science via the prism of life by citing a variety of scientific experiments, and providing examples from history of science.
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.
In 1513, Nicholas Copernicus, composed a brief theory that stated that the sun is at rest and the earth is in rotation around the sun. In 1543, just days before his death, Copernicus published this theory in On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. This theory was meant to dissolve the long lived belief in Ptolemyís theory which stated, "The earth was at the center because it was the heaviest of objects(Kagan331)." This was a common belief at that time, which supported the religious beliefs that the earth was the center of the universe and God in the heavens were surrounding the earth. Copernicusís theory was shocking, but he published such a controversial theory without sufficient evidence, it had to be considered invalid.
Nature of science or NOS is a term that refers to the epistemic knowledge of science, the knowledge of constructs and values that are intrinsic to the subject. The constructs and values include historical groundwork to scientific discovery and social incorporation such as sociology, philosophy, and history of science (“Nature of Science”). Nature of science, in my opinion, should not be explicitly taught in high school science curriculum. The basis for my standing on the issue is representative of the lack of a fundamental standard understanding of what Nature of Science is, as well as the lack of effectiveness in explicitly teaching Nature of Science which I will expand on further in