Download file to see previous pages...
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
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
This view gains ground for it also supports the theory of evolution proposed by science of evolutionary biology. However, the approach of ‘Creation Science’ which holds a trend to the Christian religion is creating controversial viewpoints about the history of the earth’s and universe’s existence.
Hempel, however, finds this use of induction ridiculous and untenable in a scientific situation. One of the major problems is that using induction to form the basis of a scientific experiment inherently involves the assumptions that it is supposed to remove, and is thus completely self defeating.
While discussing the philosophy of science two major names come before our vision. First is Kuhn and another is Popper. Thomas Kuhn was an American philosopher of science who forged a quite open, fundamental and democratic approach to science. He was a scholar and rebelled against the scientific establishment.
Scientists need to identify some of the risks involved in using induction and specifically the risks involved in using induction reasoning to come up with scientific principles as well as specific scientific judgments. Practically, induction throws up at least three general causes for concern:
led many to believe that Plato felt the philosopher could be an extreme danger to society, perhaps reinforced by the knowledge that he witnessed the execution of Socrates for his tendency to philosophize on the streets of ancient Greece. However, it is important to note that
Due to such significance of inductive suppositions, a huge number of experts, philosophers, and scientists1 have put efforts to evaluate and analyze the role of inductive inferences in scientific achievements of the humans. In specific,
The study considers classic philosophy of sciences as represented in the views of Popper and Lakatos (1999) and how it applies to psychology. It also considers the basics of statistical inference, comparing the theoretical basis of orthodox as viewed in Neyman Pearson
Kuhn considers paradigm as an important scientific tool that supports the continuation of a particular research. According to him, paradigm is a structure that contains the widely accepted views about phenomena. It has various roles in normal science. One of the roles of paradigm is the ability to determine what a researcher should study or research (Kuhn 43).
According to the definition, stress can be said to exist if it can be quantified. It does not have any qualitative aspects. Those who enroll to the theory of thought put emphasize on using empirical research to define
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Philosophy of Science for FREE!