Theories in both natural and human sciences have been very controversial throughout history such as evolution. Although some stand as correct and some have been proven wrong, most of them tend to have enough evidence to be considered correct. Most of these theories have endured a process for them to be rectified and considered as correct. The process depends on long observations, large amount of empirical prove and the interpretation of this prove. The difference in which these two areas of knowledge reach a specific conclusion is what makes them have a difference in their capability to convince people. We should analyse which and how certain factors convince us that these theories are true. I will look and compare various theories in order to fully understand the cause of their convincing extent.
Let me start by defining a couple of terms used in the question that will facilitate the understanding of the question. The word theory can only be defined as an idea that is descriptive, has a logic explanation and might be foretold easily. It starts with a hypothesis, which is then tested and supported by a series of experiments or proof. The most important thing in theories is that they are capable of being proven wrong, so there will always be an opposition to the theory; they are never “completely true”. Convincing is another term that needs definition. In this case, a convincing theory is the one that has more arguments to support its validity than arguments that oppose.
As stated before in the definition, theories are never completely true. So we ask ourselves, why do we consider some theories as completely accurate? One possible reason for this is the scientific method in which these theories are tested, this methods are co...
... middle of paper ...
...understand both its positive and negative aspects. This is the way in which we understand what is it of both natural and human science theories that might make them convincing to certain people and why is it that some are considered as facts even if they are only bare theories.
Bibliography.
Books:
• Bick, Mimi + Dombrowski, Eileen + Rotenberg, Lena; IB diploma programme Theory Of Knowledge Course Companion; Oxford; Oxford, England; 2007.
• Kid, Allan + Wilson, Pauline, Sociology GCSE for AQA; Collins; London, England; 2010.
Internet:
• Boomer, Ian; Isotopes: theory, principles and practicalities; http://palstrat.uni-graz.at/methods%20in%20ostracodology/BoomerIsotopes(170908).pdf
• Briney, Amanda; Central Place Theory: an overview of Christaller’s central place theory; http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/centralplace.html
Another problem found for hypothetico-deductivists comes in this statement, “Personal opinions have no place in science” this quote is extremely trivial. The scientific world would not be where it is today without the speculation a...
Evolution theories have been around for a long time. There have also been a lot of old- and young Earth creationism arguments. These theories and arguments are discussed in this paper.
Confirmation evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify a theory.
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Darwin's theory of Evolution have been known by the world for many centuries. Even so, not all scientists supp...
The authority of the theory of evolution can be characterized by defining what qualifies as a scientific theory. Although there are several perspectives regarding what science is, they are based on the same premises. Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, claims that the process of “conjectures and refutations” is the method of science (46). In this process, a
After Sir Charles Darwin had introduced his original theory about the origins of species and evolution, humanity’s faith in God that remained undisputed for hundreds of years had reeled. The former unity fractured into the evolutionists, who believed that life as we see it today had developed from smaller and more primitive organisms, and creationists, who kept believing that life in all its diversity was created by a higher entity. Each side introduced substantial arguments to support their claims, but at the same time the counter-arguments of each opponent are also credible. Therefore, the debates between the evolutionists and the creationists seem to be far from ending. And though their arguments are completely opposite, they can co-exist or even complement each other.
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”.
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.
In addition to logical consistency, testability is an important piece when evaluating a theory. According to Akers & Sellers (2013), “a theory must be testable by objective, repeatable evidence” (p.5); thus, if the theory is not testable then it has no scientific value. There are several reasons why a theory might not be testable; such as its concepts may not be observable or reportable events and tautology. Tautology refers to a statement or hypothesis that is tr...
After considering all the described points in this paper, it can be rightly said that there is a considerable difference between science and other types of knowledge.
...and one cannot pull a conclusion for all people of this world by using around 30 subjects. A theory is not certain; it is just a thought that we have gathered; yet through your own experience, our surroundings we see them as convincing. Natural science theories are believable because of the proof given, yet these experiment results may also be inaccurate because of human errors or errors in the scientific equipments. A theory is a system of ideas in which we attempt to explain predict or describe something that might be believable to us. We use our emotions and reasoning for the theory’s validity. Over all, the questions whether an individual is convinced by a theory or not is based on his willingness to accept this theory, his own personal aspect and the humans trust towards it. The way a theory is described and how it is displayed is what makes it convincing.
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
Although science is definitely a method of obtaining knowledge, when it comes to explaining the universe and human experience, it has both strengths and weaknesses in comparison to other explanations such as art and religion.
The opinions of experts are handy in the search of knowledge; however their opinions are a double edge sword – The knowledge of experts act as building blocks to our own thoughts, but sometimes the experts may be incorrect, and their beliefs lead seekers down the wrong path. Experts often do this when new ideas are purposed. They may disprove newer ideas in order to stay relevant, like when evolution was purposed. The benefits that experts can provide in the search for knowledge can be important but often times are more a hindrance. Experts act in some ways as a neighbor shouting to you as you walk around the block but are not as fundamental emotion, sense, perception, and language in the search for knowledge. The opinions are useful when reasoning especially in regards to the History, Human Science and Natural Science Areas of Knowledge.