Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Difference Between Knowing Something and Believing
Pros and cons of realism
True belief vs knowledge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/vaksam/">Sam Vaknin's Psychology, Philosophy, Economics and Foreign Affairs Web Sites
The debate between realism and anti-realism is, at least, a century old. Does Science describe the real world – or are its theories true only within a certain conceptual framework? Is science only instrumental or empirically adequate or is there more to it than that? Jose Ortega y Gasset said (in an unrelated exchange) that all ideas stem from pre-rational beliefs. William James concurred by saying that accepting a truth often requires an act of will which goes beyond facts and into the realm of feelings. Maybe so, but is there is little doubt today that beliefs are somehow involved in the formation of many scientific ideas, if not of the very endeavour of Science. After all, Science is a human activity and humans always believe that things exist (=are true) or could be true.
A distinction is traditionally made between believing in something’s existence, truth, value of appropriateness (this is the way that it ought to be) – and believing that something. The latter is a propositional attitude: we think that something, we wish that something, we feel that something and we believe that something. Believing in A and believing that A - are different.
It is reasonable to assume that belief is a limited affair. Few of us would tend to believe in contradictions and falsehoods. Catholic theologians talk about explicit belief (in something which is known to the believer to be true) versus implicit one (in the known consequences of something whose truth cannot be known). Truly, we believe in the probability of something (we, thus, express an opinion) – or in its certain existence (truth).
All humans believe in the existence of connections or relationships between things. This is not something which can be proven or proven false (to use Popper’s test). That things consistently follow each other does not prove they are related in any objective, “real”, manner – except in our minds. This belief in some order (if we define order as permanent relations between separate physical or abstract entities) permeates both Science and Superstition. They both believe that there must be – and is – a connection between things out there.
Science limits itself and believes that only certain entities inter-relate within well defined conceptual frames (called theories). Not everything has the potential to connect to everything else. Entities are discriminated, differentiated, classified and assimilated in worldviews in accordance with the types of connections that they forge with each other.
Soldiers in the Vietnam War had to carry all of their belongings on their bodies with them over great distances of walking, earning Vietnam soldiers the nickname ‘Grunts’. Thus, they tried to limit their already grueling load as much as possible. In Tim O’Brien’s, The Things They Carried, he creates a detailed outline of the items carried by soldiers in the Vietnam War, which were “largely determined by necessity” (2). While most were out of necessity, the soldiers in the text also had many things that were strictly for personal reasons. The soldiers were already weighed down tremendously by their gear and weapons that were necessities, yet they chose to carry around the extra weight of seemingly useless objects. Some people carried objects
Witchcraft started in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. Superstition started when women were accused of acting strangely. These superstitions turned into trials, and later lead to mounds of hanged people. Most of the people accused were innocent, but the harsh judge rulings left them with nothing to live for. The only options for the tried, no matter if guilty or not, were to claim guilty, living the rest of their life in prison, or to plead not guilty and hang. Due to both consequences being equally as punishable, many people isolated themselves from society. Unfortunately, some people caused the uprising of the salem witch trials more than others did. In the play The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, Abigail Williams single handedly attributed to the
Beliefs are imprinted in our consciousness that alters our perceptions, attitudes and how we react towards situations and moments of decisions, they perceive our realities. Everyone has a different imprints and perceive their beliefs from their personal experiences. Beliefs dictate how we react to life. Our beliefs can be altered and changed throughout the course of our lifetime
Realism, in philosophical terms, refers to the concept that there is a reality beyond our perception. This means that how we see things and what we believe about them has no impact on the nature of said things. For example an individual may see an object as blue and another see the same object to be red, this is merely a disagreement between both parties about how they should label the colour. This wouldn’t mean that both parties are discussing different objects, this shows that no matter what individual’s beliefs or thoughts on the real world are only ever approximations and do not accurately capture reality. (O’Brien, M and Yar, M, 2008)
Superstition Mountain has been the source of tales and stories about the lost gold for a very long time. The origin of the name Superstition Mountain emanates from the early farmers, who lived in Salt River valley. These farmers cultivated and cut hay for the military throughout the late eras of 1860’s at Fort McDowell. They constantly paid attention to stories about the Pima Indians and how they dreaded the “superstitious” mountain. As a result, the farmers thought the Pimas were superstitious about the mountain, thus the name Superstition Mountain.
Life in the Victorian era may be particularly unconventional and exotic to some individuals of today’s society. Bram Stoker, author of the well-known Gothic horror book, Dracula, displays what life was like back then. “For much of this century the term Victorian, which literally describes things and events (roughly) in the reign of Queen Victoria, conveyed connotations of ‘prudish,’ ‘repressed,’ and ‘old fashioned’” (“Victorian England:”). The Victorian era extended from 1837 to 1901.Compared to today especially, people at that time were highly puritanical. They were not able to speak of or even mention topics such as sex. “Without a doubt, it was an extraordinarily complex age, that has sometimes been called the Second English Renaissance.
often a moral issue and the choice to believe can be an emotional or instinctual one rather then an
Ivor Armstrong Richards, co-author of The Meaning of Meaning, a great communication theorist and rhetorician, could not effectively communicate. Richards never completely understood and he was never completely understood by others. I. A. Richards believed that there was a "proper meaning superstition," or a false belief that there was one, precise meaning for each word (Craig, 1998, internet). He argued that meaning did not exist in words, but in people as a result of their past experiences. He sought to explain his ideas through concepts such as the Semantic Triangle, Comparison Fields, and the terms "signs" and "symbols", which distinguished meaning. Richards even felt that people were so misunderstood, that he developed remedies to conquer these communicative misunderstandings. His remedies included the usage of: Definition, Metaphor, Feedforward, and Basic English. These remedies can effectively decrease, if not eliminate, various interpersonal communicative misunderstandings, primarily those resulting in conflict, that occur in today's society. Unfortunately, as a result of his liberal viewpoints, I. A. Richards received and currently receives challenges and critique.
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. ...
“Superstition is a belief or way of behaving that is based on fear of the unknown and faith in magic or luck: a belief that certain events or things will bring good or bad luck” (Merriam-Webster). “Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome” (The Free Dictionary). “Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and certain aspects linked to religion, like omens, witchcraft and prophecies, that contradict natural science” (Wikipedia). Superstition, a belief or practice generally regarded as irrational and as resulting from ignorance or from
“Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” is Bas van Fraassen’s attack on the positive construction of science. He starts by defining scientific realism as the goal of science to provide a “literally true story of what the world is like;” and the “acceptance of a scientific theory” necessitates the “belief that it is true”. This definition contains two important attributes. The first attribute describes scientific realism as practical. The aim of science is to reach an exact truth of the world. The second attribute is that scientific realism is epistemic. To accept a theory one must believe that it is true. Van Fraassen acknowledges that a “literally true account” divides anti-realists into two camps. The first camp holds the belief that science’s aim is to give proper descriptions of what the world is like. On the other hand, the second camp believes that a proper description of the world must be given, but acceptance of corresponding theories as true is not necessary.
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.
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]
For an example, consider two alternative belief systems A and B consisting of beliefs A1, A2 and B1, B2 respectively. There are two beliefs in each system none of which can justify themselves alone. If A1 → A2 and A2 → A1, then there are 2 inferential connections in A and a high inferential density. Bonjour says this makes A likely. However, if only B1 → B2 and not vice versa, then there is only 1 non-mutual inferential connection in B and thus a low inferential density. Bonjour suggests that lack of mutual justification makes the whole system of B unjustified since B1 must act foundationally.
Whether someone's belief is true is not a prerequisite for belief. On the other hand, if something is actually known, then it categorically cannot be false. For example, if a person believes that a bridge is safe enough to support him, and attempts to cross it, but the bridge then collapses under his weight, it could be said that he believed that the bridge was safe but that his belief was mistaken. It would not be accurate to say that he knew that the bridge was safe, because plainly it was not. By contrast, if the bridge actually supported his weight, then he might say that he had believed that the bridge was safe, whereas now, after proving it to himself, he knows it was