Genesis And Development Of A Scientific Fact

Kuhn, T. (2012). Science. In The Norton reader: An anthology of nonfiction (13th ed., pp. 899-907). New York: W.W. Norton &.

In the book “ The Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction”, Lawrence Principe discusses the general occurring events of the scientific revolution, and overviews various in-depth details in relation to those events. People at the time highly focused on the meanings and causes of their surrounds, as their motive was to “control, improve and exploit” (Principe 2) the world. In his work, Principe has successfully supported the notion that the Scientific Revolution stood as a period in time where one's innovation would drive improvements towards change and continuity of future innovations, along with changes of tradition. His statement is strongly backed by his detailed and particular order of events throughout the book. Nevertheless, certain details that lead beyond the necessary background are found, as they do not appertain to the general line of the book, but rather for background knowledge.

Science was born deeply intertwined within the Western cultural realm. It developed snuggly with ideas of European grandeur through the “grace and favor of Almighty God” (Lindqvist, pg.11). “The cultural conditioning these [scientists] had absorbed early in their careers influenced more than their writing: it skewed their research (Freedman). Coinciding with scientific inquiries of

In the TED talk, “The Pursuit of Ignorance,” Stuart Firestein makes the argument that there is this great misconception in the way that we study science. He describes the way we view the process of science today as, "a very well-ordered mechanism for understanding the world, for gaining facts, for gaining data." (Firestein 0:11 and 18:23) Although Firestein provides a convincing argument that modern science processes rely too much on facts instead of ignorance and new discovery, he fails to provide strong evidence that it should instead focus solely on the pursuit of ignorance.

A major thesis presented in this book is that someone can be a practicing scientist and still remain a strong believer

According to Kuhn, science has to develop prior assumptions that reevaluate prior facts before it acquires its first universally received paradigm. An example from our “Case History on the Concept of Electrical Charge” is the discoveries of Gilbert and Cabeo. Gilberts experiment lead him to believe that the effluvium emitted by an excited electric acts directly on the body rather than acting indirectly by setting un an air current that moves the body. But after Cabeo looked at Gilberts work he went to conclude a different hypothesis, which was that his observation that objects sometimes rebound or are repelled by rubbed “electrics” is that if there were no air around the electric, it could not attract the objects when rubbed. Cabeo’s hypothesis

“In the beginning,”...what was in the beginning? Science is only starting to scratch the surface of our origins, but all these findings are rather recent. Humans didn’t always have carbon dating and archaeology to find answers about their past, so they had to draw their own conclusions based off of their own lifestyles. So back to the earlier question, what was in the beginning? According to the Mayans’ Popol Vuh, there was nothing. Then the existing deities, Heart of Sky and the Plumed Serpent, joined together to give themselves the power to form the Earth from the water with their words. Heart of Sky met with the Plumed Serpent, and together they agreed on the creation of man, who would maintain the Earth and worship them. So they created animals, and made them the guardians of the forest. However, when the creators ordered the animals to speak, they could only screech and howl. Frustrated, the gods allowed them to remain guardians of the forest, but decreed that they should be eaten. After this attempt, four sub deities, the Modeler, the Maker, the Begetter, and the Bearer, attempt to make humanity out of clay. However, this creation, while being humanoid, cannot sustain itself and crumbles and falls apart. Next, the wooden humans, the manikins are created, but they know no gods, and are ugly, and lead their lives without care for their environment. The manikins are eventually killed by the animals and cookery. Finally, the gods pull themselves together, and put their

Thomas Khun begins his first essay by affirming that every scientific community needs to practice trade with a set of received beliefs. These beliefs configure the infrastructure of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice.” A system of “beliefs is very important as the “rigorous and rigid” education aids in confirming that the presented beliefs are engraved into the students’ minds. Scientists are defensive over what they view the world to be like; and what “beliefs” they hold to be true. As a result, “normal science” will hesitate to accept unconventional beliefs that oppose its foundations. Therefore, experimentation is not about unveiling the unrevealed, rather it is "a strenuous and devoted

“Part of science is to be taken as significant and expressible within E, and the rest as non-significant and falling outside E. The E portion is subject to attributions of truth and falsehood, belief and evidence, whereas the non-E portion is not. Yet the fictionalist cannot spurn the latter wholly, since he is prepared to admit its functional ‘legitimacy’ and, hence, its interest for the scientist. At most, he can deny it to be either true or false.” (Scheffler 185).

Historians of the Scientific Revolution have become intrigued with the development of scientific knowledge, scientific practices and scientific communities. In Paulo Rossi’s book The Birth of Modern Science, we see many examples of how scientific methods and formulas are composed, crafted, and confirmed. We see the differences in commitment between the elite and the popular; partially due to the circumstances of the time. We also notice how previously accepted and understood scientific formulas have been proven wrong, and the steps that were taken to get there. This paper explains how the elite and the popular were classified and separated by the rich and poor. The elite and popular were also separated through the educated and uneducated, with

Throughout The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn goes over a common problem that often exists among science, the problem of relativity in conformation with Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm. Many viewed Kuhn’s reply to charges of relativism as mundane, and that his reply may be inadequate. I feel his reply is adequate in the sense that Kuhn accounts for the fact that different people may have different perceptions of reality and that competing viewpoints may both be valid. Kuhn argues that both the skeptic and the relativist are wrong. Potentially, it could be said that Kuhn does not feel that progress in the field of science is a relative concept. However mainly the argument is that Kuhn

The Scientific Revolution, starting in the sixteenth century, marked the beginning of change. Man’s view of the world now contained scientific discovery and mathematical fact and not traditional religious beliefs alone. Beginning with Copernicus’s theory of a heliocentric universe, mankind soon began to question previously believed facts and used mathematics to discount traditional theories. During this time man questioned everything from human anatomy, nature, government, and society. In the late seventeenth century, academies were dedicated to the sciences, and their discoveries and theories are now the basis for what we consider knowledge today.

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.

Popper and Kuhn held differing views on the nature of scientific progress. As seen in Popper’s falsification theory, he held that theories can never be proved only disproved or falsified. Once a theory is proved false we move on to the next. Kuhn, on the other, hand argued a new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one but you cannot describe the old science as false. Both seem to share the Kantian idea that the really real, independently existing world is completely unknowable. Kuhn further asserts that the empirical world, which is knowable, is partly constructed by our categories and concepts. The fundamental difference in their views are best stated in Kuhn’s own words, “A very different approach to this whole network of problems has been developed by Karl R. Popper who denies the existence of any verification procedures at all. Instead he emphasizes the importance of falsification, i.e., of the test that, because its outcome is negative, necessitates the rejection of an established theory. Clearly, the role thus attributed to falsification is much like the one this essay assigns to anomalous experiences, i.e., to experiences that, by evoking crisis, prepare the way for a new theory. Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones.”(Kuhn, 145) As seen by this passage, the fundamental difference between Popper and Kuhn is that Popper disregards “verification” and Kuhn asserts that “falsification” only takes place once a

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.