Philosophy of Science - Essay Example

Wadiyah Al-Alwan Prof. Christopher Curran ENGL-1033-15 March 21, Philosophy of Science Feyerabend’s perspective on the concept of science can be viewed as being radical by most science philosophers. However, I strongly agree with his argument that science is an ideology that we must preserve society from based on the arguments in the section below. To start with, the comparison of science with religion clearly demonstrates that science does not stand up against religion. This means that scientists end up changing their facts when experimental evidence going against them comes up (Feyerabend 57).

Overall, no scientific theory survives over an extended period of time. Secondly, his ideas on scientific imperialism are viewed as being important in the argument against science. There have been numerous studies showing that the use of science in the societal setting has not always been advantageous. In fact, there are some studies that show that scientific legitimacy was used to establish unnecessary and unpopular initiatives on populations. Thirdly, conflicts arise between well- established scientific theories leading to confusion in their interpretation and application.

He states that Newtonian perspectives on the concept of gravity were rebellious as it went against Galileo’s beliefs. This shows that science is simply an ideology that society should be shielded from (Feyerabend 65). Historians support Feyeraband’s claims by stating that prominent scientists in the past including Galileo would probably oppose the modern day science. According to Feyerabend, science should be reformed and it should also be less authoritarian. Science is a treasured source of knowledge and should not be contaminated with ideologies of different kind.

All ideologies should not be taken too seriously and if possible, it would be beneficial if it was read as fairytales. Science should be formally separated from the state just as the church is separated from the state. Science may be influential to the society but only within the limits in which the political and other pressure groups are permitted to exert influence on the society. Science is not a closed book but it is an intellectual discipline where examination and criticism of ideas can be done by anyone.

The organs of state should therefore not hesitate to reject or criticize the scientific inventions when the need arises (Feyerabend 61). The consequence of the view, as I see it, would be that the government should not be allowed to fund scientific research. This is because, when allowed to interact with research, past examples have shown that governments are quite capable of influencing the outcomes of researches so that the government’s desired results are perceived as being the natural outcome.

If the government is giving funds to a certain research, there will be some type of pressure for the researchers to realize outcomes that are supportive of government policies. For instance, in the recent past, the American government has been suspected of interfering with the outcomes of researches conducted on women’s reproductive health options in the United States. The government supposedly does this in order to align the results of researches with their own proposed objectives. Science is one of the subjects that deceive a lot of people on various ideologies about life.

Considering the role that science plays in the education in the world today, one can realize the scientific ideologies are taught to the young children at early age. This may lead to adoption of perceptions that have been manipulated by scientists and thus leading to confusion in children as they grow up (Jakosky 79). The situation is even worse in the universities where indoctrination takes place at a bigger magnitude. The systems in the schools are based on deeply researched information that is meant to justify the scientific ideologies as the correct theory.

The society is largely criticized for the allowing the scientific and religious ideologies to be taught to children at an early age. The argument is based on the fact that children should be allowed to be mature before these principles are given to them to enable them to make decisions based on their judgments and principles (Feyerabend 56).Essentially, children are extremely vulnerable to new ideas. They will readily abandon their own ‘paths’ in order to humor the ideas of others. When even the most well-meaning parents and teachers indoctrinate children into their preferred religion, they may be taking away the child’s personal right to make his or her own decisions.

Children in young ages do not have the mental capabilities to conduct long discourses on what they really believe about religious ideologies. Consequently, any dogma they embrace is most likely to be that of their family members, or friends. This is not a healthy way of allowing children to acquire trust in God, even if a parent may feel that it is important for them to have a strong affinity for the family’s religious ideology. There is an existence of the argument that defends the exceptional position that science has on the society.

This argument outlines such facts like science have discovered the correct and systematic method of achieving and obtaining results. There are many outcomes to explain and prove the reliability and excellence of the method. However, the argument is mistaken where majority shows that the method leads to a dead end. The methodology is also filled with empty complicated concepts which have no solution to simple errors that arise from different subjects. The situation provides few answers and the most crucial one is that the sophistication has lost content where keeping in touch with reality could be promoted by being superficial and crude (Feyerabend 57).

This shows that the scientific inventions are based on complicated theories, and this principle could be the ideology behind science that proves the fact that science is fiction (Selinger 358).Scientific ideas, such as the Darwinian principles, have been proven to be fictitious, for instance. It is a fact that many scientific theories are actually based on other theories. Theories are important because they seek to explain how science works. However, the reality is that theories cannot be said to be facts, but merely explanations of processes that have been witnessed in the natural world.

This would mean that, to a certain extent, scientific concepts can be said to be fictitious. There are actual historic examples that have proved this concept. In the early 20th century, the subject of eugenics was regarded as being completely accurate. The advocates of this theory sincerely believed that the human population could be improved by ensuring that all communities were forced to participate in selective breeding. It is only when a more conscionable theory came up years later that the earlier concepts about eugenics started being discarded by the scientific community.

This proves that scientific concepts and theories can be amended to suit the latest expectations. One of the facts that have led to decline of scientific ideologies is the fact that science works through collection of facts and later inferring theories from them. This is due to the conclusion that has been made that theories do not flow from the facts in a logical sense. In fact, saying the theories are supported by facts assumes the notion that supports it as it does not show the defects and if the sophisticated results are relatively in agreement with the facts that are related to the subject.

There are no such notions that are present today and there are no hopes of discovering one. Transcendental and conventionalist idealists discovered that theories order and shape facts and there is no way scientists can prove that they build their theories on facts (Feyerabend 57). Scientific theories are not based on real facts, but on other theories that were proposed and accepted in the past. A logical fallacy is basically seeks to assert the validity of a concept even after it has been proven to be erroneous.

When the Darwinian theory was proved to be a fallacy, neo-Darwinism materialized, and was accepted in the scientific community. The neo-Darwinian theory is an accepted paradigm to demonstrate the validity of the diversity and history of life on earth. Yet, since the release of the ‘Origin of Species’, Darwin’s precepts have been challenged on different grounds. Theories are developed from other theories which indicate that since theories seem to add on other inventions, the empirical hypothesis may be lacking among the scientific experiments that are undertaken thus leading to inaccurate outcomes which are misleading.

This proves why we should not allow the society to be deceived by the scientific discoveries and theories that have been brought by scientists and researchers since the conclusions are based on limited arguments and assumptions of a certain phenomenon. Science does not offer concrete prove and evidence of its discoveries and principles (Feyerabend 58). In summary, Feyerabend argues that science is an ideology. This is based on the fact that science is contradictory, inconsistent and is even considered to be harmful against mankind in some instances.

The scientific discoveries are not based on empirical hypothesis but limited conclusions based on personal principles or facts from other theories. This fact proves why the society should not rely too much on the scientific discoveries and ideologies based on science. Works CitedFeyerabend, Paul, and John Preston. Paul K. Feyerabend: Knowledge, Science and Relativism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.Jakosky, Bruce M. Science, Society, and the Search for Life in the Universe.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2006. Print.Selinger, Evan. The Philosophy of Expertise. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2006. Print.