Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
History about science and technology
History has a relation with science
History has a relation with science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History about science and technology
Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction by Samir Okasha
Synopsis
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.
Analysis
In this book, Samir Okasha kick off by shortly describing the history of science. Thereafter, he moves on scientific reasoning, and provide explanation of the distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning. An important point Samir makes, is the faith that humans put into the inductive reasoning
…show more content…
The book is not providing explanation on what scientists did or how they did it. However, it offer explanations on how scientists think and how they make conclusions. In addition to the many topics explored, it is worth noting that there are also interesting tales behind some big discoveries in science which are an added attraction to this book. The Author, Dr Samir Okasha, a professor of philosophy of science at the Bristol University states that his aim of writing this book was to pass the philosophy of science in a way that can be understood by everyone. He also sought to pass his ideals in a manner that is free from complicated Jargon, with real world examples to enable all readers understand and
...cam.ac.uk/ vesalius-great-work Accessed on 4/26/14) This approach is what incited a scientific revolution when it came to how new discoveries were made, and it challenged future generations to find out more about the world around them and correct old theories.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of the Universe. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein depicts this very difference in the story of Victor Frankenstein. A scientist who through performing his experiments creates a monster which wreaks havoc upon humanity. Frankenstein concentrating wholly upon discovery ignores the consequences of his actions.
(Find example of inductive reasoning in primary source). The Scientific Revolution made the shift from an observational method of learning to an experimental type of learning. The shift in reasoning starts in the field of astronomy with a man by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus. In our lecture from October 31, we learned that he wanted to replace the old Ptolemaic system of the universe with a heliocentric model which placed the sun in the middle compared to the Earth. People during this time still did not take into consideration this new model because the Ptolemaic model was more consistent with the Old Testament.
I will discuss Nelson Goodman’s understanding of the problem of induction. Inductive arguments are arguments in which the premises (propositions) provide strong evidence for the truth of its conclusion. I will begin by examining an inductive argument where using the proposition that “all observed emeralds are green”, we can conclude that “all emeralds are green”. As shown, sometimes, through such arguments we draw conclusions based on unobserved cases. This can be considered a problem (the problem of induction), especially if such conclusions are made without any justification.
Science is reason, and reason is needed to explain the consequences of everything; its use is needed to explain the past, as well as predict the future.
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.
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. ...
The inductivist account of science recognizes five steps that are essential to scientific progress, and consequently, the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. First, scientists compile a large body of facts from observation and experiment. Using the principle of induction, these facts can, often with severe logical difficulties, be generalized to form the basis for a theory or law. Then, once a theory has been developed, scientists can use the theory as part of a valid logical argument to make new predictions or explanations of phenomena. According to Chalmers, the inductivist account has “a certain appeal” to it, namely, that all of scientific progress can be seen as the result of a linear, highly structured inductive scientific method (54). “Its attraction lies in the fact that it does seem to capture in a formal way some of the commonly held intuitions about the special characteristics of scientific knowledge, namely its objectivity, its reliability, and its usefulness” (57).
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
An English philosopher, C.D. Broad once said, “Induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy”. Using Inductive reasoning one can make judgments based on a series of observations. Another way to explain it is; induction is process using which a concept’s validity could be justified using various other observations or concepts. Many attempts have been made by many great philosophers to deal with the problem of induction. The problem is to justify the methods used to deal this problem or as David Hume describes, “Instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience” (THN, 89). David Hume is a philosopher who tried solving the problem of induction. In this article, the problem of induction will be discussed using Hume’s point of view, and then a pragmatic approach is used to rationally explain the use of induction.
“The greatest mystery of existence is existence itself” (Chopra). Chopra, a world-renowned author, perceives the existence of life as a truly mystifying cerebration. The pending question that many scientist, and even theists, attempt to answer is how life ultimately began. Currently, the mystery is left with two propositions, evolution and creation. While both approaches attempt to answer the origins of life, evolution and creation are two contrasting concepts. Evolution views life to be a process by which organisms diversified from earlier forms whereas creation illustrates that life was created by a supernatural being. Creation and evolution both agree on the existence of microevolution and the resemblance of apes and humans but vary in terms of interpreting the origins of the life through a historical standpoint. A concept known as Faith Vs Fact comprehensively summarizes the tone of this debate, which leads the question of how life began.
Science coming from the latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”, is a systematic structure that builds and organizes knowledge from testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The nature of scientific progress and the rationality of scientific change lies between Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The two influential philosophers of the 20th century had very different views of science which has caused countless debates because of it. One of them, which I believe is most interesting, was the idea of the scientific method and the idea of there even being one. The tradition understanding of the scientific method, described since the ancient Greeks, was to look at the world with a scientific eye and observe it with no other preconceived
Science is an approach by which scientists relate things to each other and explain the main concepts that govern the very laws that they derive. [Gauch, 2003]
Scientific method distinguishes from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of a scientific experimentation. Over the last few centuries there have been a large number of important discoveries. Various principles have been laid down and many rejected. Scientists have used the scientific method to get to their conclusions. Lets see how the scientific method evolved by examining a few contributions by some well renowned scientists.