The Nature Of Science And Public Forums

There has been an ongoing debate on whether psychology is indeed scientific, although recent, psychology is now considered a science. This is because it uses scientific methodology in researching, devising treatments and measuring the outcomes. These methods include collecting and analysing data and concluding their findings in order to identify whether the research or treatment adequality solves the problem. Scientific studies must be replicable, this means the if repeated exactly the same, the results should produce an identical outcome. Replicability can be increased by ruling out any alternatives that may not have originally been thought of. Objectivity in science is the idea that scientist, in an attempt to get the best results, must first

“Do-it-yourself biology” or “DIY biology” is a social movement rooted in the idea of citizen science. Usually called biohacking, emphasizing the relationship with hacker culture, this form of public engagement in science has been the subject of controversy since its inception.

Knowledge, the key to progress, has proven to be a human being’s most powerful and significant weapon. We gain knowledge when we put our brain to work at the problems we need to solve in life. It doesn’t matter what we are trying to accomplish, whether it be creating a new technology or learning how to put together a puzzle, the matter of fact is that both request great examination and research to resolve and learn. Scientific research is a technique used to investigate phenomena, correct previous understanding, and acquire new knowledge. Knowledge could lead us to a possible cure for cancer, an alternative for fossil fuels, and the creation of a revolutionary technology. Nevertheless, all these benefits are a reason why

In the two essays being discussed we learn that science has a vast range of definitions. Science is the effort to understand (or to understand better), the history of the natural world and how the natural world works with observable physical evidence as the base of understanding. Science is about how the hypothesis is developed and how well it is defended.

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

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.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.

Science is characterised by distinctive methods of enquiry and construction of theories (2). Philosophy of science is tasked with analysing the processes employed by scientists and uncovering the assumptions implicit in scientific practice (2, 12). According to Karl Popper a scientific theory ought to be falsifiable; otherwise it is merely pseudo-science (13). Scientists arrive at a set of beliefs by a process of inference (which is more often than not influenced by researcher bias). That is, deductive and inductive patterns of reasoning are used to provide a defensible explanation of the process generating the observed pattern of interest (18-23). Thomas Kuhn suggested that scientific concepts are largely influenced by the paradigms (set of

Science is the knowledge gained by a systematic study, knowledge which then becomes facts or principles. In the systematic study; the first step is observation, the second step hypothesis, the third step experimentation to test the hypothesis, and lastly the conclusion whether or not the hypothesis holds true. These steps have been ingrained into every student of science, as the basic pathway to scientific discovery. This pathway holds not decision as to good or evil intention of the experiment. Though, there are always repercussions of scientific experiments. They range from the most simplistic realizations of the difference between acid and water to the principle that Earth is not the center of

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.

Logical positivism, as a form of empiricism, links the validity of a scientific finding with direct experience by asserting that “experience is the only source of meaning, as well as the only source of knowledge” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p. 27) and therefore the only means of verification of a claim. Given that written communication necessary violates the assumption of direct experience other means of establishing this experience become necessary. In the sections that follow, I will highlight two means by which the scientific article asserts objectivity through both simulated direct observation and perceived replicability. The objectivity and replicability established though these means in turn allows for the validation the scientific claim despite the distance created in its communication.

The Science is the idea that we need to understand and distinguish it from other kinds of investigation in the world. We also refer it as “empiricism”, the scientific way we gain our knowledge from experience. Empiricism is also a view that all kinds of knowledge come from, not just scientific knowledge. Scientific thinking and investigation have the same basic pattern as everyday thinking and investigation. (Godfrey-Smith, 9) Again, we call it “empiricism” in terms of philosophical way, but in earliest form, the “empiricism” was referred as “logical positivism”. Logical Positivism is a systematic reduction of all human knowledge to logical and scientific foundations. Thus, a statement is meaningful if it is either purely formal (essentially, mathematics and logic) or capable of empirical verification (Mastin,12) One of the most important American philosophers, W.V.O. Quine, creates the two dogmas of empiricism and logical positivism.

In this essay I will argue that science and pseudoscience cannot be clearly demarcated: rather that there’s great difficulty and complication on the fringes when asserting strict criteria that distinguishes the two. I will give a brief overview and draw on the arguments made by philosophers of science throughout history and explain why perhaps their criteria are problematic. I will look in depth into ‘creation science’ and why we strongly consider this as pseudoscientific and analyse the more ambiguous peripheries of science such as Freudian psychoanalysis or even economics.

However, a contemporary consensus has emerged in science studies that the demarcation problem is essentially irrelevant to the study of science. The demarcation problem has been called a pseudo-problem by those who argue that philosophically there is no reason to believe that it is possible to define necessary and sufficient conditions to separate the scientific from the non-scientific. (Laudin 1983) Gieryn proposed that instead of considering demarcation as a conceptual problem, the bounds of science should be reinterpreted as a practical problem faced by scientists who have a professional need to distinguish their work from other intellectual

The nature and process of science are a collection of things, ideas, and guidelines. “The purpose of science is to learn about and understand our universe more completely” (Science works in specific ways, 3). Science works with evidence from our world. If it doesn’t come from the natural world, it isn’t science. You need to be creative and have flexible thoughts and ideas if you want to be a scientist. Science always brings up new ideas and theories and if you aren’t flexible to those ideas you can’t be a scientist. Science has been in our world for a long time. It is deep into our history and our cultures. The principals of science; are all about understanding our world using the evidence we collect. If we can’t collect evidence on something we simply cannot understand it. If we don’t understanding something about our world, science says that we can learn about it by collecting evidence (Science has principals, 4). Science is a process; it takes time. You don’t immediately come to a conclusion for your hypothesis a few minutes