Since the introduction of reductionism, science has greatly changed. Reductionism has captured the attention of many scientists, as well as philosophers of science for the reason that it seeks to accomplish such a large goal. However, we are posed with the question of whether or not reductionism is capable of sufficing enough information for all scientific inquiry. I will argue that biology is not capable of effectively being reduced to physics and or chemistry mainly because it cannot provide the sufficient quantities of information needed, mainly due to issues caused by incommensurability due to varying scientific meanings (which will be discussed with reference to Kuhn and Feyerabend) as well as issues with overall understanding of scientific …show more content…
Kuhn’s example of paradigm changes would immediately refute Carnap’s argument. If scientists are in different paradigms, they do not recognize certain scientific terminology to have the same meaning in nature. (Kuhn 1962) Although Kuhn’s argument is not directed at reductionism, we can use his argument to say that Carnap’s defense for reductionism is not a sufficient defense and can easily be refuted. Feyerabend also criticized the reductionist view with an argument that would have been similar to Kuhn’s. He stated similarly that universal language is an issue due to similar terms with different meanings; this would immediately refute any chance we have of narrowing all sciences down to one universal language. (Feyerabend 1962) We cannot have a universal language because scientists cannot at all agree on mutual definitions, likely because they are in two different paradigms and have different understandings of the terminology. Deriving theories from biology and reducing them into chemistry/physics would make it impossible to translate the theories into chemical or physical language properly. This is because of the biological terms seeming similar to chemical/physical terms yet meaning something different – none of the information that would be reduced would be reduced as accurate biological information as it would have its meanings and theories misinterpreted due to the collision of terms in sciences. In other words, the definition of something chemical related may not have the same meaning when defining it in physical or biological terms. This shows that biology is not comparable to physics and chemistry as their definitions, languages, etc. do not match up. Such an overlap would cause the field of sciences to become virtually dysfunctional because nothing would be clear – there would be constant confusion,
While Kuhn’s 5 characteristics do help give direction to the process of determining which paradigm is to take over the old, it also comes with many potential problems. One major problem is that scientists may still reach different conclusions by using the same criterion because of different interpretations of the criterion. They may also hold certain criterion as more important than others.
McGinn, Colin (1996) The Character of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind, 2nd ed., Oxford UP.
Passer, M., Smith, R., Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., & Vliek, M. (2009). Psychology; Science of Mind and Behaviour. (European Edition). New York.
Genetics relies on chemistry to explain phenomena related to the field. The structure of DNA relies on chemistry. In fact, when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA, they did so by building models based on the laws of chemistry. Chemistry also relates heavily to the structure and function of one of the main products of DNA: protein.
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.
Charles, Marilyn. "A Beautiful Mind." American Journal of Psychoanalysis Mar 2003. Vol.63, Iss. 1; pg. 21: ProQuest. MIT Libraries, Cambridge, MA. 8 Dec. 2004 http://www.proquest.com.
The two fundamental components of Kuhn’s proposition of scientific revolutions are the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. He defines paradigms as “sufficiently unprecedented [theories] to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity” (Kuhn, 10). Through this interpretation, Kuhn constructs the argument that possessing the ability to convince other scientists to agree with a novel proposal serves as the most crucial aspect for establishing scientific advancement. Kuhn reasons that the task of discovering “one full, objective, true account of nature” remains to be highly improbable (Kuhn...
The aim of this essay is to provide a summary and critique of Thomas S. Kuhn’s groundbreaking thesis ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.’ This will be done by analyzing his concepts of ‘paradigm’, ‘normal science’ and ‘scientific revolutions.’ Following the overview I will present the example of ‘The Copernican Revolution’ to empirically show a paradigm shift. The rest of the essay is concerned specifically with critically examining Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm and the incommensurability between them. I will show that to define paradigm is a never ending task however this should not hinder the usefulness of the concept itself.
Davis, Tom. The Theories of the Mind Lectures. Ed. G. Baston. Birmingham University. 9 Nov. 2000
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher mental processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Though many people fail to realize it, chemistry is a subject essential to everyday life, due to the fact that it is the branch of science that deals with the identification of the substances of which matter is composed. But what we must understand is that everything in the universe is composed of matter, hence chemistry is necessary in learning more about the world and universe that we live in. There are many careers and fields affiliated with chemistry that people pursue to learn more about the composition of the universe, but for now, let us examine the logistics of three of these careers. These three careers involving chemistry are geochemistry, environmental chemistry, and chemical engineering.
Gross, Richard. PSYCHOLOGY: The science of the mind and behaviour. Hodder and Stoughton Educational. 1992.
Feldman, Robert S. "States of Consciousness." Essentials of Understanding Psychology. 10th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 133-52. Print.
...o lakes and killing fish and the harmful chemicals we breathe from plastics. Therefore, scientists all over the world study organic compounds for research to get as many benefits as they can and to stop the harmful effects of using organic compounds. Scientists test how food should be stored and prepared so we do not get sick. Nutritionists study the proper diet for maximum chemical processes in the body. Environmental scientists show how human activity affects the environment. Forensic scientists test samples from people, plants and soil to find contamination or poisons. Even in the jungles of the Amazon, the people know how to use organic compounds to heal sicknesses. They may not call it organic chemistry, but essentially it is the same thing, the study of carbon compounds. As long as there is life on earth, there will always be a place for organic chemistry.