Teaching the Philosophy of Science with Non-Scientific Examples

Since the 17th century, the scientific method has served as a memorable procedure for its ability to characterize aspects of natural science. Its reliance on sense and reason allowed it to become the backbone of research for scientists, meant to make the unknown into something better understood and explored. Even still, this tried and true method cannot be deemed completely concrete. In his passage from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry utilizes various rhetorical devices in his process of characterizing scientific research, to demonstrate the similarities between scientists and the early pioneers.

They go on to discuss whether science can use literature as theory. They note that science has many influences from the humanities and they try to reason the options of how a literature narrative can be use within the context of science. The first option the pose in to completely ignore it as narrative cannot prove that theories are stories based on the narrative structure alone. Despite this, the author argues that narrative can be useful as the structure can be applied in a way to explain phenomenon. The author finishes by posing more questions about the relation of narrative in science. They then encourage scientist to consider the narrative as tool as means of

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.

As Whitehead says, “If a science forgets its heroes, it is lost.” Learning about nature of science and its social and cultural aspects will enhance of our understanding that science is a human endeavor. Science is a way of explaining natural phenomena by using interpretations and interferences with experimental data and observations. However, including history of science in our teachings, as well as a laboratory part, is a great way to illuminate students about the evolution of science and how scientists can take risks and sometimes fail while seeking information. Whether they study science fields or not, this history will encourage students to make and learn from mistakes while engaged in scientific practices that will expand their

The late 19th and early 20th centuries brought forth a modern approach to science, intellectual affairs, and the arts. Before 1914, these ideas were a result of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment periods. During this time period there were a series of new inventions, which included electric lights, phonographs, cinema, and automobiles. One of these developments that “opened the way to a modern consciousness” was with developments in science. Science was a field that dealt with cold hard facts and reason, which is different from the religious beliefs that many individuals were used to seeing. Many believed that the Scientific laws of the time would give rise to an understanding of the physical world, however the “new” physics altered

Entering into the twentieth-century, Enlightenment ideologies proved to be prevalent in helping express and formulate newfound scientific discoveries. Renewed was the philosophy of focusing on the concepts of reason, individualism, science, reform and progress over traditional and customary viewpoints of the Western world. Authors of the book Discovering the Twentieth-Century World, agree with this outlook proclaiming, “By the early decades of the twentieth century, the patterns of nineteenth-century Western thought seemed under assault on every front. Old ways of thinking fell to new discoveries in the physical and social sciences, and Western artistic expression cast off old norms as well” (Discovering the Twentieth-Century World, 39).

In recent times, there have been three individuals who have provided their interpretations on that structures of science. Thomas Kuhn developed the idea of paradigms, which are nested concepts for looking at the world, and later would propose the idea paradigm shifts for what he called the Kuhn Cycle. Following Kuhn's work, Imre Lakatos and Larry Laudan created their own analysis on scientific structures using Kuhn's work as a base for their own. Lakatos and Laudan both attempted to rationalize and improve on Kuhn's work. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze the differences in Kuhn's work as compared to Lakatos and Laudan and explain which account of scientific structures is the most persuasive to believe in.

To begin understanding whether or not science progresses towards greater truths, truth must first be defined. It is the quality or state of conforming to fact or reality.1 As such a greater truth is one which better conforms to reality. Through scientific revolutions science progresses towards a taxonomy of greater truths. To accept this one must first understand that truths exist in science, that there are greater truths which replace falsified truths, and that science is continually building its way towards those greater truths through revolutions. For the purpose of this essay a scientific revolution is as Kuhn describes the shift from one accepted paradigm to a new one where a paradigm is considered a distinct set of concepts and theories. Science seeks to discover and explain the objective realities of our world and universe through these concepts and theories. Throughout history theories have been proposed, accepted, and replaced. This is the one constant of science in the long run; that it is always improving upon itself; our bank of knowledge is increasing. While there are periods of regression, today the world is definitively more scientifically advanced then it was a millennia ago. But why is it that we consider todays accepted paradigms to be true and the paradigms from antiquity false?

For instance the impact that science has on the arts; one characteristic of our age that science, in addition to the pursuit of expanding knowledge and understanding in whatever respected field of study, also plays a complex role in society and the culture at

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. Both articles appear in the textbook to this class.

This essay will show the reader why science is essential for students to become effective citizens in the 21st Century. It will explore the meanings behind the words “21st century learning” and what it means to be an effective citizen. It will explain why science more so than ever before is an integral part of the primary school curriculum.

Historically, the relation between art and science seems to be a relationship between literature and science, since literature is the most common and fastest-influenced art of social reality and its richest in terms of the multiplicity of expressive materials that convey people's feelings in order to convey their human message. The science from this angle also serves the practical needs of people and provides them with the knowledge of substantive laws and increases their interaction with nature and take advantage of its machines.

Scientific misconceptions are commonly held beliefs about science that has no basis in actual scientific fact. Consequently, scientific misconceptions are also based off of preconceived notions developed through religious and/or cultural influences. Researchers Isabelle, Millham and Cunha developed an interchangeable phrase for misconceptions called alternate conceptions, “conveying respect for learners’ prior knowledge and personal experiences,” (2014). As a result of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) educators are starting to realize the value of misconception in relation to student’s building their own scientific knowledge. Student’s are able to increase their understanding of the world around them through exploration or “sense-making.” By sense-making educators are facilitating meaningful lessons that are dependent on student and authoritative ideas in a way that involves students into their own learning. Through this student are encouraged to “talk about their own thinking, compare ideas, to test these ideas, and to see if they can be used to explain natural events and processes,” (Campbell 2016). Educators and researchers are realizing that today’s students have been offered explanations about the world around them that is inconsistent with actual scientific fact. Due to this realization, we as educators are given a challenge. Misconceptions need to be eliminated and replaces with the correct scientific facts.

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.

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.