What it is about the theories of human sciences and natural sciences that make them so convincing?
When focusing on the human sciences and natural sciences, one might wonder why we believe what we believe. In general, human science can be defined as a social science, or anything that deals with human behavior in its social and cultural aspects (Bastian 190). Natural science is more often thought of as "regular" science. It is an organized undertaking that focuses on gathering knowledge about the world and condensing that knowledge into scientific laws and theories that can be tested (Bastian 153). Theories in these two types of sciences are often convincing because of the observation that takes place, the empirical evidence, and the ability to put the theories and laws to the test. This knowledge by description, which is defined as public knowledge that is expressed as facts, as well as knowledge by acquaintance, knowledge from familiarity or experience, can also be contributing factors in why we believe what we believe (Bastian 18). However, there are some knowledge issues, as well as counterclaims that may interfere with someone’s belief and perspective on a certain topic. Also, some of our ways of knowing can play a role in different interpretations of theories in these sciences. These aspects can help answer the topic question of what it is about the theories of human sciences and natural sciences that make them so convincing.
In science, a theory is a tested and testable idea which is used to provide an explanation for an occurrence (Scientific Laws and Theories). Very similarly, a law can be defined as a set of observations that are expressed in an abridged statement (Scientific). An example of a law in nat...
... middle of paper ...
..., whether that is through their own observations and interpretations or through empirical evidence that can be convincingly backed up by scientific data.
Works Cited
Bastian, Sue. Theory of Knowledge. IB Diploma ed. Pearson Education Limited, 2008. Print. Pearson Baccalaureate.
"Convince Me: How Strong Is the Evidence?" Understanding Science. Web. 15 Jan. 2012. .
"Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation." The Physics Classroom. Web. 10 Jan. 2012. .
Schultheis, Erin. "Harry F. Harlow." Psychology History. May 1999. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. .
"Scientific Laws and Theories." College of Science and Mathematics. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. .
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
Carl G. Hempel was of the most influential proponents of what is now regarded as the classic view of explanation in science. In his work, Philosophy of Natural Science, he created the deductive-nomological model which is the following account of scientific explanation, where an explanation is set out as a formalized argument. This is the principle format for works such as Aristotle’s Physica, Ptolemy’s Almagest, Newton’s Principia and Opticks, Franklin’s Electricity, Lavoisie’s Chemistry, and Lyell’s Geology. Thomas Kuhn calls these achievements Paradigms. Through these paradigms normal science developed. In Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he argues that normal science in a way hinders the development of new phenomenon. He says that there must be a change in a paradigm to create a scientific revolution. Throughout this essay I will explain what Hempel’s model consists of and how it relates to Kuhn’s view.
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
ss. Now we will talk about the Theory of Forms and the Theory of Knowledge.
While some people may believe that science and religion differ drastically, science and religion both require reason and faith respectively. Religion uses reason as a way of learning and growing in one’s faith. Science, on the other hand, uses reason to provide facts and explain different hypotheses. Both, though, use reason for evidence as a way of gaining more knowledge about the subject. Although science tends to favor more “natural” views of the world, religion and science fundamentally need reason and faith to obtain more knowledge about their various subjects. In looking at science and religion, the similarities and differences in faith and reason can be seen.
van de Lagemaat, R. (2011) Theory of knowledge for the IB diploma, Cambridge University Press.
The major difference between History and Human science is way in which the scientist uses tools while the historian uses facts and figures. Feyerabend explains that an allegory presented by the human scientist depends on egotism, ideals, and the perspective of other shape of knowledge, and are not enveloped by method, evidence, reason or argument (Anderson 259). There is a big debate to whether social science is actually a science. J.S.Mill believes that while we can justify and discover unpretentious regularities in the physical world, we can also explore the connections between actions thoughts through Mill’s Method on causation (Salmon). This allows us to interpret the change in human behavior over a period of time. Human science can become exact to physical science as human behavior can cause unknowable circumstances (Salmon).
Lagemaat, Richard Van De. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. Print.
When considering the basis for the understanding of both science and religion it is interesting to distinguish that both are based on an overwhelming desire to define a greater knowledge, and comprehension of the universe that surrounds us. Now while, science has based its knowledge of experimental basis, researcher, and scholarly work; religion
The issue shall discuss the various differences between science and other types of knowledge and discuss the argument whether the science can rely without the separate theories posted by non-scientific educational bodies. ...
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
Faith has several strengths and weaknesses when used as a basis for knowledge in religion and the natural sciences. In order to fully analyze these strengths and weaknesses and determine which of the two is more prevalent, faith, religion, and the natural sciences should be distinguished from one another. In The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary faith is defined as the “belief and trust in God” or “allegiance to duty or a person” (270), religion as “an organized system of faith and worship” (617), and science as “knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method” (650). Faith may be considered a strong basis for knowledge in religion as religion is usually built around the concept of faith. However, faith may be a weak basis for knowledge in religion as certain teachings in a religion may not have a direct link to the concept of faith. Similarly, in the natural sciences, faith may also be seen as a strong basis for knowledge as a scientist has faith in the hypothesis he may be testing. Likewise, faith may be perceived as a weak basis for knowledge in the natural sciences as faith and the natural sciences tend to offer incongruous solutions to the same problem.
The word theory emanated from the Greek word meaning “contemplate” It has been viewed by scholars in different ways. Theory can be defined literally as an explanation of phenomena and its associations with variables that it is attempting to predict. There are no general agreed definitions of theory because scholar’s views of what constitute theory differ based on the purpose, nature and what make up of a good theory (Gelso, 2006; Harlow, 2009; Stam, 2007, 2010; and Wacker 1998). For instance, Wacker, (1998), pointed out that a theory must have four basic criteria such as conceptual definitions, domain limitations, relationship-building, and predictions. He, also, opined that for any theory to be regarded as a good theory, it must have qualities for `good ' theory, such as “uniqueness, parsimony, conservation, generalizability, fecundity, internal consistency, empirical riskiness, and abstraction, which apply to all research methods” (p.364). Stam (2010) interpreted theory as ...