In psychology, the six principles of scientific thinking are extraordinary claim, falsifiability, Occam razor, replicability, ruling hypotheses of rival, and correlation vs. causation. We know that gaining new knowledge always help the growth of our mind, but sometimes a claim may contradict what we have already known, then we need more persuasive evidences to prove this claim before we accept it. It is natural that people doubt something extraordinary and a very basic thinking skill that is known as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Specifically, it can be presented as I did not come to class today and I tell my instructor that I ate bad seafood last night and had diarrhea, then she might believe me. If I tell her it was because an aerolite hit my house, but there is no one media reported this news, then she would not believe my claim because it is extraordinary in nature, and there is no extraordinary evidence. Secondly, if a claim is supported by persuasive evidences, it should be falsifiable as well. At least in theory there is an observation ...
In today’s world there are always people trying to come up with a new way to explain something. There will always be people trying to pedal a new product or story about an innovative new way to look at things. Some of these ideas will really be ground-breaking, but many of these will be false ideas. Many of them will just be honest mistakes, but just as many will be ideas from people trying to trick other people. Carl Sagan recognizes this and writes about it in his article The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. Within it he describes how he has been vulnerable himself wanting to believe things that people have told him that didn’t seem true, but was what he wanted to hear. He then goes on to talk about how people need to be skeptical about what they are told/read. He has developed a system using the scientific which he calls “Tools for Skeptical Thinking.” These are things that people can do when evaluating a situation or idea to check for “baloney.” I have picked six of these tools to explain in further detail.
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement.
Humans have inhabited the Earth for thousands of years and it is perceived by many that we are among the most intellectual species on this planet. Although having lived on this planet for so long, being able to distinguish fact from fiction has escaped the minds of many. People of today’s society are easily influenced by what is told to them instead of what can be proven. Believing in something that has no scientific evidence is not only absurd but can be classified simply as ignorance. Many of the erratic ideas that are believed by many today have originated in a time where superstition was more popular than science. These beliefs appear to be proven by science, but in reality are not valid and frequently confused with true psychology, this is called pseudoscience or psuedopyschology. These beliefs remain intact for many years primarily because those who choose to believe these psuedopyschologies are the ones who try to prove that they are in fact valid, and tend to ignore the evidence that proves them wrong.
without evidence is justified for "genuine options" because belief in a fact is necessary for
ABSTRACT: BonJour argues that there can be no basic empirical beliefs. But premises three and four jointly entail ‘BonJour’s Rule’ — one’s belief that p is justified only if one justifiably believes the premises of an argument that makes p highly likely — which, given human psychology, entails global skepticism. His responses to the charge of skepticism, restricting premise three to basic beliefs and noting that the Rule does not require ‘explicit’ belief, fail. Moreover, the Rule does not express an epistemic duty. Finally, his argument against this fails since it is false that if an experiential state has representational content, then it is in need of justification. I venture the diagnosis that BonJour mistook the representational content of a cognitive state for the assertive functional role of a belief. Foundationalism may well be false, but not for BonJour’s reasons.
Upon reading Will to Believe, there is no doubt we will all begin to question how we’ve gotten to our beliefs and why we believe what we do. William James argues against forced beliefs and expresses the importance of choice. The idea of choice is one I strongly agree with. Although we are easily influenced by others, when it comes to beliefs free will must come into play. As far as the science method, which I have discussed, a belief is just as valid whether there is evidence or not because most scientific methods will never be one hundred percent proven and they will change over
I will start off by agreeing with Clifford that we should have sufficient evidence before making an assumption. But I don’t believe that just because we don’t have sufficient evidence it’s automatically wrong. I think that we have to look at the foundations first. And we have to look at the foundations that we know and if they’re where some reasons to doubt, then I will have to doubt the principles. And I think that knowledge does not depend upon things of whose existence I don’t have knowledge yet. So how can we say that if there isn’t enough evidence to support a claim, why is it considered wrong? I find it illogical because just because there still isn’t enough evidence, doesn’t mean its wrong, its just not considered right or wrong. We don’t have enough proof to make it erroneous. And we can’t assume anything until there are enough indications to make it otherwise.
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.
“Everyone should try to make themselves more empathetic, sympathetic, compassionate, loving, and caring and less indifferent, hostile and prejudice”, (Williams, C. & Arrigo, B., 2008). Ethics of care teaches professionals to cultivate the appropriate feelings and emotions. Today people are brusque, short, rushed and irritated on a daily basis because of time. They should instead take a step back and think of how others would feel or take the conversation and plan the appropriate approach. This is what makes me strive to be a critical thinker through retaining information and beliefs that are generated by skills and to have a habit of intellectual commitment to guide my behavior. Can human beings use reasoned thinking to gain knowledge and understanding about reality? Effective reasoning and critical thinking requires the use of knowledge, skills, and tools necessary for critical reflection as well as analyze and work through ethical dilemmas. Effective reasoning is a form of moral reasoning which will aid me in recognizing moral considerations and cope with conflicts. Reasoning is responsibly conducted thinking that will guide my assessments and rationality in order to attempt a well-supported/well-defined question/answer. Reasoning is absolute and yields clarity. Critical thinking leads to an examined life which is when a human being reflects on their own life and strives to change wrong behaviors. An examined life requires us to maintain a healthy degree of skepticism, keep an open mind, step back to see what is in front of us, and see beyond categories, labels, stereotypes, and other performed ways of sorting. An unexamined life is not worth living if you are closed minded and cannot see beyond people’s face value. ...
Belief over logical evidence and ordinary circumstances Reinsel began his research into parapsychology by conducting an experiment where he had a subject try to correctly identify a symbol from a pack of cards without coming into sensory or physical contact with the cards. There are twenty five cards in a deck, where there are five sets of symbols- a cross, star, circle, waves and a square. Statistically in one run, the subject should be able to correctly identify five of the symbols in a deck. (Schick and Vaughn) Out of the 100,000 attempts Reinsel conducted, the subjects averaged 7.1 correct ‘guesses’.
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”.
In 1513, Nicholas Copernicus, composed a brief theory that stated that the sun is at rest and the earth is in rotation around the sun. In 1543, just days before his death, Copernicus published this theory in On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. This theory was meant to dissolve the long lived belief in Ptolemyís theory which stated, "The earth was at the center because it was the heaviest of objects(Kagan331)." This was a common belief at that time, which supported the religious beliefs that the earth was the center of the universe and God in the heavens were surrounding the earth. Copernicusís theory was shocking, but he published such a controversial theory without sufficient evidence, it had to be considered invalid.
Are any scientific theories true? If so why? If not why do we rely on them?
Nature of science or NOS is a term that refers to the epistemic knowledge of science, the knowledge of constructs and values that are intrinsic to the subject. The constructs and values include historical groundwork to scientific discovery and social incorporation such as sociology, philosophy, and history of science (“Nature of Science”). Nature of science, in my opinion, should not be explicitly taught in high school science curriculum. The basis for my standing on the issue is representative of the lack of a fundamental standard understanding of what Nature of Science is, as well as the lack of effectiveness in explicitly teaching Nature of Science which I will expand on further in