Scientific Knowledge Is Reliable Knowledge

871 WordsMay 21, 20154 Pages
In the following essay I shall be responding to the statement put forward by Alan Chalmers which is quoted below. I will explain the point of view that agrees with this statement, how Karl Popper or someone who holds hypothetico-deductivism views would react and my own personal opinion. “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge. Scientific theories are derived in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by observation and experiment. Science is based on what we can see and hear and touch, etc. Personal opinion or preferences and speculative imaginings have no place in science. Science is objective. Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge.” Chalmers is a supporter of an inductivist view. An inductivist view is one that follows the notion that all scientific methods will create reliable knowledge by means of so called inductive reasoning from things that can be physically seen or experimented with. A hypothetico-deductivist view is one where radical ideas should be put forward and then attempts should be made to falsify it. If these ideas can withstand these attempts then it must be considered to be true. A person who fully agrees with Alan Chalmers statements and therefore would support the ideal that all of scientific knowledge is in fact proven and that scientific theories are developed from previous experimentation that leads to observations and therefore evidence. They would be of the viewpoint that in fact
Open Document