Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of learning science
Impacts of science
Importance of learning science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of learning science
An explanation is one which is ‘rooted' or firmly embedded in psychology and in reality. An explanation is one which should make something vivid to the person inquiring. A young child asking why the sky is blue or why water freezes cannot be satisfied with an answer couched in scientific polysyllables that he does not understand. To be effective, an explanation must be one which is easy to understand. On the other hand, a proper explanation must rest on truth - that is, it must refer to reality. A good explanation is one which fulfils or satisfies the particular need of the inquirer and answers only that.
Let us take for example a priest enquiring about a robbery seeking an explanation from the robber. If he asks: ‘Why did you rob the bank?', and the robber replied, ‘Because that's where the money is.' This explanation, for the priest's purposes, as per the priest's question is not an explanation fitting to him. The
…show more content…
The three essential aims of science are prediction, control and explanation. However, the greatest of these is scientific explanation. Scientific explanations are nothing but tentative proposals. They are offered in hope of capturing the best outlook on the matter. Scientific explanations however, are subject to evaluation as well as modification. They are valid deductive arguments whose conclusion is the event to be explained. The Scientific mode of explanation is more properly named the nomological-deductive type. It is also known as the DN account. This means that the explanation is deduced from law-like statements (from the Greeknomos= a law). For example, there is the law, or universal hypothesis, that whenever the Earth passes between the Sun and the Moon there is an eclipse of the Moon. Thus any particular eclipse may be explained as an instance of that general law. The general rule that provides the explanation is strengthened if it can be shown to be consistent with a more fundamental
The Scientific Revolution, during the 16th and 18th centuries, was a time of conflict. It was not a hand-to-hand martial conflict. It was a conflict of advancement, similar to the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union. However, it was between the thinkers of the Scientific Revolution, such as Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei, and the Roman Catholic Church. At the time, the Catholic Church was the most powerful religious body in Europe. It controlled everything from education to faith to finances. Thinkers like Galileo took the risk and went against the church. This is shown through the documents below. Those documents tell the story of Galileo and how he was forced to revoke his support of heliocentrism by the church. The documents below also show the struggle between faith and reason that existed during this era of advancement by hindering the flourishment of the sciences by stating that it did not agree with the Bible and naming these early scientists as heretics.
Please use the textbook, the PPT lecture handout of Chapter 1, and internet to answer the following six questions:
The scientific revolution was what introduced the way we think based on experimentation, observation and how we apply reasoning to the things we do scientifically. During the scientific revooution this way of thinking brought forward new kinds of thinkers otherwise know as enlgihtentment thinkers. These enlightenment thinkers brought there ideas forward, which helped lead the strive for there independence . this is what led to the beginning of the scientific revolution. The scientific revolution began around the mid 1700s and went all the way through the mid 1800s theses revolutions did not only stay in one place, this was happening globally in Europe, the americans and through out the latin American colonies. You might ask yourself what did they these revolutions have in common ? they all became infulanced by one another and was infinced by the enlightenment thinkers.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
In science, the word "prove" is definitely overused because some situations, such as the flood, are not able to be repeated. Many theories in society have been presented as fact, when indeed they are still just theories. Therefore, this paper's purpose is not to give an absolute right or wrong, but to inform the reader of the possibility of the occurrence of the flood.
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.
According to the Webster dictionary, pseudoscience is defined as “a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”(Merriam-Webster) There are actually many forms of pseudoscience that people believe are legitimate science. This is because they either want to believe something is true, or they just don’t know how to tell the difference between pseudoscience and real science. The most effective way to recognize pseudoscience is knowing the eight warning signs of pseudoscience. These warning signs allow for an individual to recognize when something might be pseudoscience, so they can look into it and decide whether it is or not. If anything contains one of the eight warning
If you were told to believe a side of an argument that did not have majority of evidence points on its side, would you? The theories of evolution, creation and intelligent design have been a debated controversy for years and years. These three theories have three different ideas. The theory that creationists have is to believe that concept and design require a Creator. Creationists usually tend to believe that each organism is created as a single and distinct organism. Evolutionists tend to believe that all life started from single celled organisms. They believe that these single celled organisms are part of a continuing evolution over a very long period of time and that this evolution results in the development of new varieties and different species. People who believe in intelligent design believe in the theory that the universe cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity. Evolution is the theory that is most probable because of the fossil record, similarities in all organisms and genetic changes in a population over time.
“Properly open mind is just the most enjoyable way to live” Ronald Geiger said in his article about skepticism. Skepticism is one of the first steps on the road to open, creative and critical thinking that young people should take in their lives. It is important for the people in adolescence period, like high school students, to learn how to think properly and be critical toward some of the aspects in society. The course in skepticism in high school will allow students to have positive effects on their intellectual level, ethical standings, physical conditions and psychological status. Skepticism should be included in high school curricular and be one of the requirements for graduation because of its tremendous amount beneficial factors in
The modern science view as well as the Scientific Revolution can be argued that it began with Copernicus’ heliocentric theory; his staunch questioning of the prior geocentric worldview led to the proposal of a new idea that the Earth is not in fact the center of the solar system, but simply revolving around the Sun. Although this is accepted as common sense today, the period in which Copernicus proposed this idea was ground-breaking, controversial, and frankly, world-changing. The Church had an immense amount of power, and was a force to be reckoned with; in the beginning of the Scientific Revolution, new scientific proposals and ideas were discouraged in many cases by the Church. A quote from Galileo’s Children does an excellent job summing up the conflict: “The struggle of Galileo against Church dogma concerning the nature of the cosmos epitomized the great, inevitable and continuing clash between religion and reason.” If evidence goes against scripture, the scientist is considered a heretic and is, like in Galileo’s case, forbidden to discuss the ideas any further. Galileo Galilei, who proposed solid evidence and theory supporting the heliocentric model, was forced to go back on his beliefs in front of several high officials, and distance himself from the Copernican model. This, luckily, allowed him to not be killed as a heretic, which was the next level of punishment for the crimes he was charged with, had he not went back on his beliefs. Incredible support was given through the young developing academies with a sense of community for scientists and academics; “Renaissance science academies represent a late manifestation of the humanist academy movement.” Since the Church was grounded traditionally evidence that went agains...
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
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]
As Europe began to move out of the Renaissance, it brought with it many of the beliefs of that era. The continent now carried a questioning spirit and was eager for more to study and learn. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many discoveries were made in subjects all across the realm of science, but it was the doubting and testing of old traditions and authorities that truly made this time into a revolution. The Scientific Revolution challenged the authority of the past by changing the view of nature from a mysterious entity to a study of mathematics, looking to scientific research instead of the Church, and teaching that there was much knowledge of science left to be discovered.
Are any scientific theories true? If so why? If not why do we rely on them?
There are many myths when talking about science. Myths are usually routined views or stories that help make sense of things. Misunderstandings of science are most likely due to educational programs. The article focuses on ten myths.