The Demon Haunted World By Carl Sagan

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.

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Humans today have become illiterate to science and is explanations of the world like the sicencetifc method. This is the reason why humans give love a divine power, it is easier to explain love as a divine power rather than what physically is happening. There is a saying that goes “ love is the closes thing humans have to magic” this statement is a reaction to human experiences of love ,so much is going on inside a person's body that they have yet to understand,so it becomes easier to just give those feelings a name such as love or magic.In Carl Sangan’s book The Demon-Haunted World he states “ 95% of Americans are scientifically illiterate”(6). He goes on to explain the scientific method and how humans are choosing to believe pseudoscience than the science of this

“Rocks of Ages” is Stephen Jay Gould’s commentary on the conflict between secular scientists and religious believers who reject scientific theory when in it is disagreement with religious teachings about nature and origin of the natural world. Certain aspects of his argument hold true, but the application is impossible and still gives one magisteria a dominance over the other. While it is an accurate account of historical disagreements and critical views of well-known people, his argument is flawed by human nature. He repeatedly contradicts himself and maintains a bias in favor of scientific theory.

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

one of our first and still is one of our best cautionary tales about scientific

“The Power of Mysteries” by Alan Lightman and “I Could Be Wrong” by Allan Barger reveal a commonality of the appreciation of uncertainty. Lightman’s essay describes his experiences in question asking, answer seeking, and coming to realizations. The essay provides a retrospect into Lightman’s younger years where he asked questions such as, “Does time go on forever?” (Lightman). As Lightman grew older and became an astrophysicist, he found that he could not answer any of the questions he asked himself as a child. The feeling of not being able to establish an answer to the unknown continues to give Lightman exhilaration, and it is greatly shown in his essay. He treasures the concept of not being able to solve a mystery. Lightman reveals

​Each individual of humankind was born with a natural curiousness about oneself and one’s surroundings. Seeking the truth and explanation of those things is human instinct. In the past, the ancestors believed that any natural phenomena were created by supernatural powers of God. After hundreds or thousands of years, these phenomena have been logically explained by scientific methods and theories. However, in 20th century, when these two different explanations interpreted with each other, it became a controversial issue questioning which one was right and which one was wrong. The Scopes Monkey

Discoveries can manifest themselves in many ways and can be evoked by one's curiosity, necessity or wonder. The

Considering that Bill’s interpretation of scientific observation rests on human assumptions, for Bill, assumptions are necessary for understanding origins history. Accordingly, Bill uses assumptions as a starting point for thinking.

Contemporary issues involving scientific findings are a never ending issue for the Lord’s people to contend with. In the first century, philosophy was a major problem for the primitive church. Paul the apostle constantly defended the truth against the false ideas contrived by men; it shouldn’t be any different in the present-day. Attending the sessions of the Scholar’s Think Tank track grants the listeners an excellent opportunity to learn more about issues surrounding various sciences and modern skepticism so that they might effectively combat them.

The film The Truman Show portrays an array of the ways of knowing continuously throughout. One of these ways can easily be deciphered as intuition. The essential gut feeling can swallow up any other reliable source solely because of a certain unexplainable phenomena pulling the heart and mind in polar directions. Initially, it is Truman’s intuition that over powers his refuting thoughts and this is demonstrated when Truman explains his theory to Marlon, who then proceeds to invalidate it. This leaves Truman empty handed and with a lack of reliable sources, except his intuition.

In The Dark Side of science by Heather E. Douglas that published in the November (2011) issue of The Scientist, promotes the use of forethought on studies done by scientists. Dr. Douglas focuses on the great need for the studies done to include the negative outcome on life vs just the positive. In a closer reading Dr. Douglas is humanizing the situation to connect with scientists explaining why we need to take responsibility for our actions.

The world is a complicated place that works in mysterious ways, but people, with their inquisitive minds, refuse to let even the most confounding puzzles go unsolved. Science provides explanations for aspect of the world with no tangible evidence. But more often than not, science gets it wrong. One way to test the validity of a scientific theory is the use of the Hypothetico-Deductive Method. The results of such a method provide evidence of confirmation or disconfirmation, though these results cannot always be trusted. The world is complicated, thus it requires an equally complicated instrument of discovery. With such complexity, philosophical problems in reasoning are bound to arise, but there is always a solution to such issues.

In “The Refutation of Skepticism”, Jonathan Vogel establishes an “Inference to the Best Explanation” (hereafter, “IBE”) as a means to refute skepticism about the external world. In this refutation, Vogel acknowledges that skepticism about IBE still remains a possibility, but that this kind of skepticism would be rather outlandish in character and thus could be ignored. This paper shall both establish and evaluate Vogel’s reasoning as to why he confidently dismisses any skepticism pertaining to his IBE, and furthermore will illuminate some points as to why Vogel may have mischaracterized potential threats to his method, leaving his refutation of skepticism vulnerable to doubt that is not as