Robert Van Leeuwenhoek was a prominent scientist of his time. He could arguably be considered an absolute genius of his time period. Nobody was able to reproduce his findings for nearly a century later. That is a huge span of time, showing just how advanced his scientific methods truly were. This is an example of Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift. Kuhn came up with the idea of paradigm shift in a sudden moment of eureka. Kuhn readily challenged the ideas of other scientists and the way science ought to be learned and processed (Wienberger). Leeuwenhoek is a very interesting scientist to study in the fact that he had no formal institutional education. However, he did spend a majority of his childhood with his Uncle who was a lawyer. This small detail …show more content…
He was an empiricist, meaning he had to make logical or empirical connections in order for something to be cognitively meaningful. “There is a great difference between the system of logical interconnections of thought and the actual way in which thinking processes are performed. The psychological operations of thinking are rather vague and fluctuating processes; they almost never keep to the ways prescribed by logic and may even skip whole groups of operations which would be needed for a complete exposition of the subject in question. That is valid for thinking in daily life, as well as for the mental procedure of a man of science, who is confronted by the task of finding logical interconnections between divergent ideas about newly observed facts”. This quote from Reichenbach describes a profound problem in science. This problem is taking scientific knowledge from a scientists ideas and being able to present them to the public. Reichenbach believed that if you are unable to speak about the subject you are studying, then you do not have real knowledge of the subject. Reichenbach describes the thought processes of scientists as “psychology”. The underlying theme behind Reichenbach’s philosophy is proving that the works of many scientists that have been published are usually jargon and not supported fully. Hans Reichenbach says that even though the scientists may have the missing facts in his mind, they are not always portrayed in the work they present. This poses a huge problem; society therefore then is not able to help with such findings because they may be missing key basic facts that are essential in furthering this scientists ideas. In my opinion I believe a lot of scientists purposely leave out certain psychological dynamics in an experiment. A prime example being Leeuwenhoek. Leeuwenhoek took this to an extreme by even lying to colleagues about his work. I believe this is common practice because a
Without theories, scientists’ experiments would yield no significance to the world. Theories are the core of the scientific community; therefore figuring out how to determine which theory prevails amongst the rest is an imperative matter. Kuhn was one of the many bold scientists to attempt to bring forth an explanation for why one theory is accepted over another, as well as the process of how this occurs, known as the Scientific Revolution. Kuhn chooses to refer to a theory as a ‘paradigm’, which encompasses a wide range of definitions such as “a way of doing science in a specific field”, “claims about the world”, “methods of fathering/analyzing data”, “habits of scientific thought and action”, and “a way of seeing the world and interacting with it” (Smith, pg.76). However in this case, we’ll narrow paradigm to have a similar definition to that of a ‘theory’, which is a system of ideas used to explain something; it can also be deemed a model for the scientific community to follow. Kuhn’s explanation of a Scientific Revolution brings to light one major problem—the problem of incommensurability.
conveyed was even higher learning was just temporarily a state of the living. Vanitas expressed
As John, the narrator, researches the background for his book on the atomic bomb, he becomes fascinated by Dr. Felix Hoenikker. Hoenikker is the archetypal scientist, isolated from human contact, dedicated to his work, and completely without moral awareness. Like the child's game cat's cradle, which is meant to amuse but only terrifies his son, Hoenikker's scientific games are anything but harmless.
It is almost impossible to write historically informed essays about any given topic in modern psychology without making reference to the work of Wilhelm Wundt. In part, this is because he produced a tremendous amount of written work (over 53,735 published pages1), and because he is widely regarded as the first experimental psychologist.2 So, it’s no surprise that Wundt has something to say about the psychology of judgment. Given the historical context in which his work took place, however, you might be surprised to learn that Wundt was keenly aware of both the problems with traditional associationist accounts of psychology and the temptations of psychologism. His system of psychology, while acknowledging the associative characteristics of some types of thought, takes pains to stress the non-additive nature of higher cognitive acts and fights to preserve the independence of psychology (and the rest of the “special sciences,” including logic and ethics) from physiology. In this paper, I’ll briefly review the basics of Wundt’s approach, detail the neo-Humean roots of his psychology, discuss how he attempts to embellish those roots with some apperceptive greenery, and summarize his position regarding psychologisms.3 While Wundt’s motives are to be admired (…and despite his historical significance), I'll conclude that his attempt to be true to the physiological roots of the psychology of judgment while still respecting its ultimate independence vis-à-vis logic was a failure.4
Alfred Adler has commonly been described as a man ahead of his time (Wedding & Corsini, 2014). He had several philosophical influences and spent all of his time reading, writing, and lecturing to share his powerful thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. The following will describe Alfred Adler’s personal history, major events that occurred in his life, and the contributions that he has made to the field of psychology.
Reich developed his theory of orgone energy over several years and expanded it throughout his lifetime. His theory was the result of experiences with his neurotic patients and his biological experiments, which he felt provided concrete evidence for the existence of orgone. Orgone energy can be thought of as organic or "life energy. " Reich first observed this energy while studying the bioelectric nature of pleasure and anxiety.
At the University of Leipzig, Wundt opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology, a psychology lab that marks the beginning of modern psychology. His laboratory enabled scientists to separate psychology from philosophy through the analysis of the scientific human mind and behavior. It established psychology as its own field of study through analysis of objective measurement and contr...
Rieber, R. W. (2001). Wilhelm Wundt in history: the making of a scientific psychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
There is great reward in the study of psychology; the study of the Homo sapiens species. Their minds that include intellect, intelligence, habits and behavior rationalizing just as the quote at the beginning advocates—the entire world, history and future, revolves around them. Psychology, not limited to contemporary, “is a rich and varied subject that can simulate theoretical questions while at the same time offering practical application in almost all areas of everyday life” (Cherry). This is the gift that Leon Festinger was born with in New York City on May 8th, 1919. From there, he would go on to earn his Bachelor of Science degree from City College of New York in 1939 (Cherry). Psychology is a science. It has its methodology and asks for phenom...
He had wanted to be a research scientist but anti-Semitism forced him to choose a medical career instead and he worked in Vienna as a doctor, specialising in neurological disorders (disorders of the nervous system). He constantly revised and modified his theories right up until his death but much of his psychoanalytic theory was produced between 1900 and 1930.
Psychology originated during the 17th century. A French philosopher named Rene Descartes introduced the idea of dualism. This philosopher asserted that the mind and body was two separate entities that interacted to form the human experience. Earlier philosophers relied on methods like observation and logic, while today’s psychologist use scientific methods to study and come to a conclusion about human behavior and their thought process. In 1879 a psychologist named Wilhelm Wundt opened the first psychology lab at University of Leipzig. Wundt viewed psychology as the study of human consciousness and sought to apply experimental methods to studying internal mental process. Wundt work in psychology helped set the stage for future experimental methods. Even though Wundt influence has dwindled over the years, the impact he had on psychology is unquestionable.
Through his psychiatrist work with brain-damaged soldiers, Fritz Perls (Husband to Laura Pearls), established that an approach which would treat patient as functional ‘whole’ would be more effective. He therefore diverted from his traditional psychoanalytic practices, to develop gestalt which he believed would be less discrete. Apart from Sigmund Freud, Reich works on self-understanding and the process of personality change heavily influenced his theories and concepts. Differential thinking as presented by philosopher Friedlander, also played notable and influential role. Fritz nonetheless did...
I have known about the basic understanding of the scientific method; I knew that in order to answer the questions we have about the world, we have to explore what we know about the world by observing it and testing our theories as well as experimenting to help gather new knowledge. However, now I have a much more in depth understanding of the scientific method. I for one did not think that every hypothesis can be taken seriously, such as a dream in our day and age, however I think that this makes sense as even accidental discoveries might have a missing peace to our puzzle and we should not overlook any possibilities and test them all. I found the story about Dr. Semmelweis’s Study of Childbed Fever really interesting, as it really displayed how the scientific method can be used to answer our questions rationally even in that time period. I was unfortunately not surprised they placed him in an insane asylum, I actually kind of predicted it as I was reading, as I know that is what their mind-set was during those
“... Antony van Leeuwenhoek considered that what is true in natural philosophy can be most fruitfully investigated by the experimental method, supported by the evidence of the senses; for which reason, by diligence and tireless labour he made with his own hand certain most excellent lenses, with the aid of which he discovered many secrets of Nature, now famous throughout the whole philosophical World.”
In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.