One source of support for the legitimacy of science follows from the so-called “grand narrative” which presents a view of science as an objective, autonomous, self-regulating and self-correcting process. Jerry Francis identifies three (3) underpinnings to the legitimacy of science but then notes that scientific misconduct does occur. Based upon these three (3) mechanisms, briefly explain how or where the “grand narrative” is likely to be at least partially naïve or idealistic.
Francis (1989) identifies three structures that underpin the legitimacy of the scientific “grand narrative”. However, the dichotomy between the scientist’s personal goals, and collective scientific goals means that these structures are fundamentally flawed. There are three specific instances in which the ideology of the “grand narrative” is flawed by human nature.
Firstly, rewards are not just internal. The “grand narrative” exists in a universe where everyone doing research is solely motivated to produce research without any pressure from anything outside of their desire to produce high quality research. However, this is idealistic. The reality is that researchers have multiple sources of pressure to conduct and publish beyond their desire to do so. This shifts the dynamics of grand narrative and
…show more content…
Due to the siloed, specialist nature of research, papers are likely to be reviewed by their direct competitors who have incentive to discredit contrary results. Additionally, researchers face incentives geared towards quantity not quality of papers produced. Finally, the top schools have an “uneven playing field” are likely given the benefit of the doubt when being reviewed for top tier journals. This is compounded by the fact that those reviewing are most likely from top universities themselves and therefore potentially more lenient towards their
The natural sciences have a lot in common with Pandora’s box. Both contain any number of wonders and possibilities within them, the promise of untold riches and benefits just as great as the threat of disaster and pain. The fear of catastrophe can keep the scientific box shut, and science may not progress at all. For this reason, scientists should only be held responsible for the application of their discoveries to an extent that does not give them blame for the negative. For should scientists be blamed for the tragedies that result from their work, not only do they become a scapegoat for the abusers of their knowledge, but the process of scientific discovery itself becomes hindered by this fear of the unknown.
Moreover, they used race, sex, and gender to impact the sociopolitical sphere, and create a certain level of autonomy and monopolization over scientific knowledge (Gieryn, 1983: 783). This directly relates to our discussion on credibility, and the popular image of the scientist as one of constructing facts (Haraway 1991: 23). Creating and maintaining an image of someone who is objective, one uninfluenced by social aspects (ibid: 23). Thus, making scientists absolved from any social accountability, and free from any restraints outside of the scientific community (ibid
We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific
Assuming the office of chief Superintendent of Education in Upper Canada, Egerton immediately swung into action as he continued to make countless creative, as well as, extensive changes targeted to remodelling the Upper Canada school system whose general control of the school was within his jurisdiction- the Chief Superintendent. Egerton had the prerogative to “set standards for the curriculum; supervised the training, inspection and examination of teachers; and oversaw the selection and distribution of textbooks, through a central depository and press plant which encouraged the publication of works by home-grown authors. Libraries were organized in every school”. (Claude W.D, 2002, para 7)
Grinnell explains that when scientists make a discovery, they cannot claim it as a scientific fact until they have convinced the scientific community of its legitimacy; therefore, a discovery that has not entered the second conversation of Grinnell’s cyclical model is only a proto-scientific claim. This distinction is an extension of Grinnell’s argument regarding subjectivity and inter-subjectivity. Furthermore, when a scientist make a discovery, it is deemed as proto-scientific since its interpretation could have been influenced by the scientist’s subjective experience; however, once the scientific community inter-subjectively agrees on the legitimacy of the claim, it becomes scientific. Credibility is the process by which this transformation
Ever since Hunter Jordan died, Ruth and James were heavily affected. In order to combat this, they both use different ways to grieve over his death. To begin, Ruth, James’ mother, rides her bike to grieve for her husbands death. To show proof, James says, “She would ride in slow motion across our street… It was her way of grieving,” (7). As one can see James believes his mother rides her bicycle to grieve for her deceased husband. In addition, James also notes, “it was something [the bike] my stepfather found on the street in Brooklyn and hauled home a few months before he died.” (5). To explain, James says that his stepfather found the bike and brought it to Ruth a few months before he died, so Ruth uses it to remind her of her husband. Furthermore, another way Ruth grieves is in church. James says, “she would occasionally do something in church that I never saw her do at home… she would bow down her head and weep.” (50). As one can see, Ruth cries in church to grieve for her husband because if her kids see her, they would think she is crying because God makes her happy.
Science plays an integral role in the development and findings of many great things that we can benefit from. Integrity along with a specific set of moral standards must always be followed in order to ensure the end result enables a healthy environment for all whom wish to benefit from such studies. Integrity must always play and be the most essential key role in scientific research. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) and Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) one is able to conclude that integrity must be maintained while conducting scientific research as a lack of can result in the creation of monsters.
2. I agree that journalism and policies must give all viewpoints the chance to be shared with the public, but I do not support the false balance of scientific legitimacy being granted to all viewpoints. It is important for the public to be informed of current scientific issues, without a doubt; however, I think the public should hear more about the viewpoint that the majority of the scientific community supports. In the process of weighing the evidence, it is true that the less legitimate viewpoints must also be considered. However, the false balance of viewpoints in journalism and policies makes it harder for the general public, especially the non-scientifically trained, to recognize the viewpoint
Jonathan Marks’ quote can be broken down word by word beginning with ‘production’. Production insinuates that science is an active process. One does not simply fall into scientific knowledge because there are no scientific discoveries. All science must be pursued with an intent and attentiveness. Without having motivation and a reason for executing science, there would be no knowledge to be had. Next comes ‘convincing’. Convincing suggests that science is social. In order for science to be considered ‘truthful’ or ‘correct’, other scientist must also agree with the view. Scientific knowledge must communicated with other professionals in order to persuade their opinions to align. Communication and social processes are vital to forming scientific
On September 11th 2001, New York was attacked by terrorists. When asked about the day of the attack, my father told his story. My father’s day started out by him getting on the bus at 4:35 to go to Grand Central Terminal, his job at the time. He arrived at work around six a.m.. He punched in and started his typical day. Three hours went by and this is when things took a turn for the bad side.
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
It is also assumed that the act of telling a story can provide insight into past, present and future events (Espinoza, 1997). By going through this process, individuals can find the importance of certain events and assign roles to people who are a part of their story. This act can allow a client to find new meaning and understanding to their reality (Espinoza, 1997). Not only is a
Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.
As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.
Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat