The Logic Of Scientific Discovery

Frankenstein, written by Mary Shelley, explores the theme of the pursuit of knowledge and scientific discovery through the main characters; Victor Frankenstein, the Creature and Robert Walton. This pursuit of knowledge drives the plot of the novel, leading Victor to create the Creature in his attempt to break down the mortal barriers that surround him and unlock the secret of life. Robert Walton’s quest for discovery leads him to the North Pole, far beyond the reach of Humans at that time. Ultimately Victor’s thirst for knowledge and scientific discovery did him more harm than good with Victor’s hatred of his creation driving him to death. Frankenstein’s message to the modern is age is simply put as “humans should not meddle in the business of the gods”. Mary Shelley’s is using Frankenstein and the actions of the characters in the novel to warn us that although we have the technology to for example, create a human being, some things are better left to nature. In our quest for knowledge we can do ourselves more harm than good. Through her novel Shelley tells us that on our path of scientific discovery there are some trails better left unexplored.

The “Doctrine of Discovery” was a concept used to further colonization and strip land from the indigenous people. According to Class 7 Lecture, it allowed colonial powers to colonize the land that they discovered even if indigenous people already lived there. The doctrine provides “title to the nation making the discovery” of the land even if the soil is inhabited by natives. Provided the land excluded “European sovereign”. When European powers establish rule in what is now the United States the government was given the ownership of the lands until they felt the need use of the land. The Indians currently residing in the lands were just inhabitants. The doctrine set for by Chief Justice Marshall was set forth to mimic colonial powers and prevent further European expansion on U.S. soils. Following the Johnson v McIntosh case, it established a preventive measure of Indians and Indian tribes from selling the land to anyone but the United States government. This was to prevent European colonies to develop in the United States.

Empirical knowledge is integral in developing or explaining theories of science. A scientific theory, in the first place, relies on a body of factual information

to its discovery by Europeans. As legal justification for the removing of Indian Tribes from their ancestral lands, Pope Francis V’s Doctrine of Discovery was applied. There are many elements to this doctrine and as time wore on, more and more of them were used by the government of the United States as legal justification for what at its base can be seen as both theft and ethnic cleansing. Each of the ten elements plays an important role in what transpired on this continent and shall be discussed to further clarify the actions taken by the U.S. government.

Sometimes mistakes can lead to great discoveries. An explorer can be searching for a waterfall and then trip and fall into a hidden cave. The possibilities are endless when it comes to this topic. Like in “Lost Cities, Lost Treasure”, “How a Melted Bar of Chocolate Changed Our Kitchens”, and “In Praise of Careful Science”. These things can change people's lives in good and bad ways.

Throughout the passage, John M. Barry uses a variety of methods to describe the process of scientific research. The author gives us long metaphor where a scientific investigator is like a pioneer in an unexplored region of the world. The author also gives us a little bit of background information on characterizations needed for scientific research.

Discovery inhibits the ability to embrace new beginnings and accept a sense of change whether it is found or forced upon an individual. The places you travel and the people you meet can emotionally revolutionize a self-discovery through unexpected but anticipated terms evoked from curiosity. ‘Swallow The Air’ written by Tara June Winch and ‘The Thing Around Your Neck’ written by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie break the inhibitions of vulnerability, as their ideas represented through cultural contexts and values, lead to an overall self-discovery.

Aylmer's book of experiments and their results is a metaphor for how scientific discovery only leads us to find more questions not answers. In Aylmer's book, it shows that all his great achievements and discoveries were merely accidents and by-products of his original goals that failed to achieve conclusive answers: "his most splendid successes were most invariably failures, if compared with the ideal at which he aimed" (51). It becomes apparent to the reader that all of Aylmer's attempts were merely futile and in

The following essay aims to discuss the inconsistencies between the inductivist and Popper’s points of view of science rationality of science in light of claims that the scientific method is inductive yet an inductive method is no. I think is rational to say that inductivist view of science has significant contradiction that Popper’s view solves. To support Popper’s view my argument will introduce the inductivist and falsificationsist views and I will focus in showing the issues of considered science as objective, scientific knowledge as proven and nature as uniform as well as the differences between inductivism and falsificationism to the creation of hypothesis.

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.

Popper opines that a significant problem with the scientific method is that scientists get so caught up in evidence that supports a specific conjecture that they either 1) fail to consider

Popper and Kuhn held differing views on the nature of scientific progress. As seen in Popper’s falsification theory, he held that theories can never be proved only disproved or falsified. Once a theory is proved false we move on to the next. Kuhn, on the other, hand argued a new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one but you cannot describe the old science as false. Both seem to share the Kantian idea that the really real, independently existing world is completely unknowable. Kuhn further asserts that the empirical world, which is knowable, is partly constructed by our categories and concepts. The fundamental difference in their views are best stated in Kuhn’s own words, “A very different approach to this whole network of problems has been developed by Karl R. Popper who denies the existence of any verification procedures at all. Instead he emphasizes the importance of falsification, i.e., of the test that, because its outcome is negative, necessitates the rejection of an established theory. Clearly, the role thus attributed to falsification is much like the one this essay assigns to anomalous experiences, i.e., to experiences that, by evoking crisis, prepare the way for a new theory. Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones.”(Kuhn, 145) As seen by this passage, the fundamental difference between Popper and Kuhn is that Popper disregards “verification” and Kuhn asserts that “falsification” only takes place once a

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

Why do young bright minds of India want to take up science or research as a promising career path in the first place? Doesn’t it feel like a risk? What career opportunities does one have after getting a PhD? These questions are bugging me quite a lot these days. For most of us, born and brought up in middle class urban society are taught right from the start to work hard and be well educated enough to secure a good job. Seemingly it is the gateway to lead a comfortable life. I think in India it is the most important thing in life. Getting a decent job. It’s the only thing that matters. No matter how creative you are and harbor any kind of alternate ambitions otherwise it becomes secondary after a point. So growing up, the thought of pursuing science and research could only be such a far-fetched dream for many of us I guess.

Humanity’s interest in unknown world has been universal and enduring. Accompany with human development, discovery the unknown world has become more and more important to human life. Some people think discovery is a good thing. They will tell you how X-ray used by medical professionals to help diagnose and treat a wide range of medical problems. They will also tell you what a mass your life will be if Benjamin Franklin did not discovered electricity. But other argue people think discovery bring disaster to human. They will tell you if Martin Heinrich Klaproth did not discover uranium, maybe atomic bomb would not been invented. Although the question about whether discovery always a good thing has so many