Reasoning Effect On Psychiatry

Bernard once said that “Science teaches us to doubt.” Barry uses this quote to explain his theory of scientific curiosity and the world of uncertainty. He explains that certainty creates strength and uncertainty can be found as a weakness that brings out hesitant feelings. However this quote explains that science is built upon uncertainty and in which this quote is to convey to the reader of Barry motives.

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

This exchange exemplifies the way that scientific discovery can be shadowed by human intuition. In his book The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan poses the most accurate way to describe the natural world; anything that can be discovered by humans that is within our cognitive scope is and should be subject to skeptical scientific examination guided by open-minded thinking in order to account for errors in human intuition, as well as clouded judgement due to emotional responses.

In my initial response, I stated that the two forms of therapeutic reasoning that stood out most to me were narrative and scientific. After gaining more information on the client, I agree that interactive reasoning is extremely important. Due to the fact that the client is angry and not eager to start therapy, the therapist will have to work hard to build his trust. This will require the therapist to remain aware of his feelings while helping to transfer his anger into motivation. Since the client stated he does not know what occupational therapy is, educating him on the benefits and all that he can still do will help with his motivation to participate in therapy. I also think this could cause some ethical reasoning issues regarding maintaining

This essay will explain the title "The Fixation of Belief," by Charles Sanders Pierce. He argues that the method of science is superior to all other methods, due to its ability to establish what is true and what is not true in an objective manner. He argues that since “experience of the method has not led us to doubt it,” the method of science will necessarily lead us to “one true conclusion.”

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.

Many members of society believe that certainty is the key to success. They claim that they must be certain of themselves in order to achieve greatness. Yet the grandest discoveries have come from men and women who have doubted standard ideology. Innovators such as Copernicus, Einstein and Darwin are famous for discovering new ideas. If they did not question the world, however, they would not have succeeded. Therefore, the only way to continue developing is to live with doubt rather than certainty.

Furthermore, there are three main aspects which were customarily associated with a science: metaphysical, theoretical and methodological assumptions. Under metaphysical it is believed that to gain scientific status requires the certainty that the subject matter i.e. human thought/ behaviour, is similar to that of other accepted sciences. This could then be true for Psychology, as particularly since Darwin’s suggestion of a continuity between behaviours of humans and other species, behaviour has become more scrutinised. However, this must be assumed in respect of determinism, suggesting predictions could be made. ‘Heisenbergs uncertainty principle’ suggests that when relating evidence of indeterminism within the universe to human behaviour, it proves ambiguous, and with parts of the discipline believing strongly in free will it seems difficult to establish a common ground (Valentine E.R. page 2).

Discovery is humanity’s most subjective form of human progression. Discovery is not validation of man’s evolution, but a testament to man’s ignorance and limitations. From the “discovery” of the new world to the “discovery” of the Earth being spherical, the achievements in discovery mask the reality of man’s flaws in relation to nature. Concurrently, in science and in medicine, discovery has seemingly lost its subjectivity because due to the scientific method, discovery is not merely coincidence, but logical inevitabilities. However, the crux of the argument is that research practices predetermine a favorable outcome, not an objective conclusion. The subjectification of outcomes through “scientific” means is exemplified in the modern-day science of genetics and the genesis of genetic disease. The apex of such research revolves around Alzheimer’s disease and the potential cure for it. The opposing factions, regarding finding the cure for the disease, both agree that in the discovery origins of the disease also lies the key to cure genetic diseases. Yet, the deviating claims of disease origin converge on two claimed points of genesis, genetics or genomics, with both offering absolute scientific conclusion that support both. How can both sides present objective scientific data that cements their side as being correct when the opposing side has just as much data and correctness in their claim?

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

Today, positivists are less enthusiastic for certain earlier expectations of epistemology. Recognising the claims for accuracy and objectivity rests over less secure foundation that is once believed aspect of doubt take place within research for modern proponents that tends to deal within the levels of partial objectivity and probability. However, such claim might be reduced to the level of modest approach; positivism must emphasis on the empiricism role, skills for discovering meaning from the objects and the unison of sciences (Eriksson & Kovalainen,

Chalmers (2013) has claimed that ‘see is believing’ is a misleading when making a scientific claim. A high proportion of people believe that ‘science is derived from the facts’ is a distinctive feature of scientific knowledge. (Chalmers, 2013) However, they possibly not familiar with the accurate definitions of the word ‘science’ and its distinguished properties with non-science and pseudo-science. This essay is intended to illustrate the difference between science, non-science, and pseudo-science, and attention will be paid to the fact that non-scientific explanations could be correct in several areas. A discussion of the appropriately responds to the situation when a science explanation clash with a non-scientific explanation would be provided in the last section.

The study of the philosophy of science explores whether scientific results are actually the study of truth. Scientific realism is an area of study in the philosophy of science and has a contrasting view called anti realism. The debate between the two revolves around their disagreement between the existence of an external world. A scientific realist believes that an external world exists independent of our minds whereas the anti realist, or the idealists, believes that no such world exists outside of ourselves. A stick underwater seems bent while railway tracks seem to meet in the distance, when they do not. Our vision plays tricks on us and therefore the phenomena appears misleading. Seeing as there are doubtful sources to our experiences

The ultimate test for any idea, ranging from abstract philosophical concepts to objective scientific theories, is the reality. What makes us to believe whether something is right or wrong is how much that “thing” is compatible with reality. In physics, reality is the direct result of an experiment; thus, we are forced to think about reality as “observable reality”. In fact, the distinction between reality and observable reality is extremely important, since as a consequence of this distinction, a logically correct theory may not necessary be correct while a logically non-satisfying theory may be completely correct (if it is also able to predict the result of a series of experiments). Reality can encompasses any logical idea whether observable or unobservable, but observable reality consist of only observable phenomena whether or not they seem logical.

In further detail, the Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Therefore, the three main questions are: what qualify as science, how reliable are scientific theories, and what is the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). In this essay, I will be introducing and discussing Karl popper’s philosophy of science and its criticisms.