Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
race a biological or social construct
race a biological or social construct
race a biological or social construct
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: race a biological or social construct
The Justification of Science
What does the average person think when they hear that an idea is supported by science? Often, it makes people assume that this idea must be objectively true, and will necessarily be more right than a theory that doesn’t have the backing of “science.” While in many cases, objective science really does produce better results than mere conjecture, there have also been influential movements in history that were justified by “science,” but which we see today as unjustifiable. These include biometrical methods like phrenology and craniology, the empirical definitions of racial difference in the 19th century, and the “scientifically” racist ideology of the Nazis, among many others.
In many of these situations, biology has been used to support conceptions that were already accepted in the society of the time. However, they seemed stronger with scientific support, even if the scientific support was weak enough that it was eventually proven to be untrue. Considering this, why were these “scientific” conclusions seen as objective when, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that they were not? Additionally, why did the supporters of these ideologies want to use science as support? If science were seen as merely a collection of useless knowledge, it would not have been relied upon in the way that it was, so it is clear that the scientific method was trusted to add some additional level of truth to the given conclusions. The interactions between these systems of classifying groups of people, their scientific support, and society in general tell us many things about science and about people.
Physiognomy and Phrenology
The earliest versions of biological classification are found in the related disciplines of physiognomy and phrenology. Physiognomy, the science of reading a person’s character based on facial characteristics, was popularized by Johann Caspar Lavater in the late 18th century. His Essays on Physiognomy, widely read throughout Europe for many decades, gave a newly scientific justification to an idea that had been present in popular thought since ancient Greece. There, Aristotle recorded observing that certain physical traits in people are often linked to distinctive personality traits, and Pythagoras is said to have selected students for his classes based on who “looked” to have potential (Mainwaring 1980). As this concept reached the 18th century, it was given the explanation that God makes a connection between a person’s face and their “inner state.
When you look up the dictionary, the definition of 'Science' is "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws" (Webster's dictionary). In order to make a truth, many scientists take the time to observe or test with scientific method. In nineteenth century, there are some incorrect truths even if it looks like truths logically arranged by scientific method because the scientists understood the priori that already assumed the outcome would be the same as their predictions. As I read Stephen Jay Gould's argument from "Women's Brains", he found some unequal conditions that supported scientific method for intelligence of man. Paul Broca tried to measure the inferiority of women with scientific certitudes that were invidious comparisons such as races, classes, and sexes.
One of the most visible critics of science today, and the progenitor of the anti-science sentiment is the religious community, specifically the conservative Christians. One can hardly read the newspaper without reading of one religious figurehead or another preaching on the "fallacy of science," pushing their own brand of "truth" on whoever would hear them. As Bishop writes "It is discouraging to think than more than a century after the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species (1859), and seventy years after the Scopes trial dramatized the issue, the same battles must still be fought."(256) And the loudest rallying cries to these battles can be heard issuing from the throats of the ranks of zealots and their hordes of followers.
For a student trustful of today's scientific prowess, the realization that science cannot prove anything came as a surprise to me in high school science class last year. Indeed, a skepticist would say that finding real truth is never possible given the chaotic nature of our world. Such a worldview is among the several interconnected themes in Jonathan Coe's The Winshaw Legacy.
The Strength of the Teological Argument due to Science Science does give us more and more information about the universe, but it doesn’t believe in God or God as the designer of the universe. there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. But learning more about the universe does show us that there is an order in the universe, which strengthens the theological argument. The Design argument is a theory based on the idea that everything in the Universe is ordered by. It is also known as the Teological argument.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another.
Scientists have greatly taken todays advantage to make what once was research, factual evidence. To be a scientist takes great creativity and intelligence, and today’s scientists even past scientists had to rely on their hypothesis as a form to make a new discovery. John M Barry, the author of The Great Influenza explains how scientific reasoning. Barry compares scientific reasoning as very important, that a scientists works “…May break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” This idea of his, compares what a scientists work may be with what it actually is.
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. ...
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.
Even though, science it all about proven facts, people see past that and all they care about is what has not been proven. All society
Jakob Bronowski’s book, “Science and Human Values” argues that the scientific method of inquiry into reality provides a generally applicable foundation for moral judgement. Bronowski says, “in order to keep the study in a manageable field. I will continue to choose a society in which the principle of truth rules. Therefore the society which I will examine is that formed by scientists themselves: it is the body of scientists” (Bronowski 58). Bronowski makes it clear in his book that he is going to base his study on scientists. There are five steps in the scientific method of inquiry into reality. The first one being Observation, the second is Hypothesis, the third is Experiments, the fourth is Theory, and the fifth being Publishing.
He was also able to create a numerous amount of theories. Aristotle was most famous for his Logical Foundation of Physiognomics. The logical Foundation of Physiognomics, is whenever we meet an unknown person, and often starts from his or her external appearance. Every aspect of it can be regarded as some kind of clue: for instance, clothing and hairstyle can tell something about social status and personal fashion, facial expression and gestures indicate the emotional state of mind of the person and their life. Also clinical symptoms allow to diagnose a disease. Yet all those features are superficial and changeable, and therefore do not tell anything about the inner nature and character of a person, by which we define personality and identity. Also it shows itself only in words, it would need a long-term observation to detect it, and still there is hardly fight against the wilful deceit. A short-cut method of, physiognomics is used: it is the art of inferring character from the physique of body and face, and especially used from those features that can hardly be influenced by bone-structure, stature, voice, and the supposedly unconscious parts of body
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.
The phrase “take it at face value” adequately describes physiognomy. Indeed, what is the value of a face, especially the permanent features on a human? Can we examine a person’s facial appearance and learn about that person’s character and future? In physiognomy, we can predict the human character and destiny with its face features or body structure. Due to this reason, we sometimes call it ‘Face reading’ rather than physiognomy. For instance, if we meet someone for the first time, we might evaluate their first looks. It shows that the physiognomy has been influenced to us deeply. Physiognomy which already occupies our lives is of great antiquity. There is evidence in the earliest classical literature, including Homer and Hippocrates. That physiognomy formed part of the most ancient practical philosophy. Over time, the development of science makes people not believe the knowledge based on unscientific grounds. People want to explain everything in scientific rules. Science also enhance the accuracy of information. This trends form the society that doesn’t want to trust anything without scientific fact and uncertainty. Unfortunately, physiognomy is perceived as the most unauthentic field to people according to these standards. In addition, with the advent of Libertarianism, the approved theory of a modern state, people began to think that future and character can’t be decided in advance and they can change them by efforts. Today, Physiognomy is interesting in that it has actually regressed as a pseudoscience, having a reasonable foundation in its early days but being refined further into nonsense as the centuries progressed. Despite what people who disagree with physiognomy may believe, it is believable by scientific, physiognomica...
Science has played a significant role in the development of society. Other world views, such as Hum...
Why am I so afraid of science? After all, was it not because of science that advancements in technology were made? Did it not create immunizations for once lethal diseases such as measles and polio? Although science does benefit our lives, it also provides detrimental and destructive results. The automobile was a break through invention, yet, it is also one of the main producers of pollution. Was it not a result of science that the atomic bomb was created thereby, destroying the lives of numerous beings? J. Michael Bishop and Pamela Samuelson demonstrate through their readings that science can be both beneficial and detrimental.