The Road Of Realism : Le Poidevin 's Instrumental Theism Essay

In the passage from “The Great Influenza,” by John M. Barry, he characterizes scientific research through the utilization of figurative language, organization, and rhetorical appeals. Barry asserts us that a scientist’s notion and beliefs can easily be undermined by uncertainty, while certainty can enhance their experimental views and confidence. Throughout this excerpt, Barry uses rhetorical devices to explain the qualities of scientists that enable them to achieve higher levels of success.

He explains why UCTs are as popular as they are in modern society, and why people should nevertheless disregard and approach them with caution. What Keeley refers to as “virtues” are the reason for the popularity of UCTs. He gives the virtue of explanatory reach as the first and main reason for UCTs popularity, which is the account of all knowledge including errant data. This is in stark contrast to the received theory, which is imperfect by nature. This quality of UCTs is particularly attractive because it appeals to human rationality by allowing for no loopholes. Keely argues that errant data alone is not significant enough, and that a theory should never fit all of the data. This leads into one of the main points, concerning falsifiability and skepticism. Unfalsifiability is acceptable when the item or person under investigation is not actively trying to escape from the investigator. Keeley contends that the problem is not the innate unfalsifiability, but rather the increasing amount of skepticism required. Keely seeks a hole in the concept of conspiracy theories that accounts for a person’s innate sense that belief in a particular conspiracy theory is not justified. In the case of the natural sciences, falsifiability is acceptable because of the rigorous protocols in place, and therefore, we are warranted in believing scientific claims.

Fahnestock investigates how original science writing is primarily devoted to presenting facts and assumes the audience has relevant background knowledge and understands the significance. Conversely, accommodated writings shift the genre to become epideictic and thus neglect addressing facts, instead focus on emphasizing the importance of a discovery. One reason Fahnestock provides for the shift in genre is in order for an audience to realize the significance of a discovery accommodators must ensure the audience is able to accept a fact and align it according with existing beliefs. To ensure they are successful, Fahnestock argues that accommodators rely on

In this paper, I will discuss how three influential scholars in this order: Augustine, Aquinas, Galileo, delimit science or the bible and the ways their beliefs overlapped or didn’t.

In his book The Great Influenza, author John M. Barry writes about his opinion on the characteristics of scientists and their research. He believes that science is full of uncertainty and scientists must be able to deal comfortably with the unknown, as well as the fact that scientists must be creative and accept that their own beliefs can be easily broken by their own research. He accomplishes this by utilizing rhetorical strategies such as allusions, references to relatable examples, and a “matter of fact”, harsh tone.

To accurately determine wether creationists should be involved with scientists in public debate, or in scientific debate at all, one must accurately define the institution that scientists represent. The issue present is the ability to provide an accurate definition of science. As Ruse stated “it is simply not possible to give a neat definition” (Ruse, 1982), however Ken Ham attempts to define science through the linguistics route. Using the origin of the latin word

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.

In the article “ On Being an Atheist,” H.J. McCloskey attempts to inform his readers that the belief in atheism is a “much more comfortable belief” by effectively using a disdainful rhetoric towards theists and their faith. McCloskey delves into both the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, which within he criticizes the arguments and to further his argument against theism, he also presents the Problem of Evil and why evil cannot possibly exist with a perfect God being the creator of universe. What will be displayed in this essay are the counter-arguments to McCloskey’s criticisms and the attempt to discredit his claims that regard the “comfortable” position that lies within atheism and its arguments.

Science plays an integral role in the development and findings of many great things that we can benefit from. Integrity along with a specific set of moral standards must always be followed in order to ensure the end result enables a healthy environment for all whom wish to benefit from such studies. Integrity must always play and be the most essential key role in scientific research. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1831) and Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) one is able to conclude that integrity must be maintained while conducting scientific research as a lack of can result in the creation of monsters.

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

In Creation Science is not Science, Michael Ruse argues that Creation science is not science and in Science at the Bar- Causes for Concern, Larry Laudan opposes this view by arguing that Creation Science is science, but that it is false. In this paper, I argue that Michael Ruse had the better argument and that Creation Science is not science. First, I explain Ruse’s argument for why creation science does not meet the criteria for science. Second, I consider and explain Larry Laudan’s opposing view that creation science is false science. I then argue why I believe Ruse has the better argument.

By Lecture Four we covered multiple conceptions of method. Method is central to the scientific enterprise. The founders of modern science were looking for an impersonal, objective basis for their knowledge claims. This was coming at a time when science was separating from religion-based belief systems. Method is crucial to determining truth and developing scientific hypotheses. Without a method in place, the goal of objectivity within science is compromised. Method is discussed throughout the entirety of Losee’s book. Losee generously discusses theory acceptance, rejection, falsification, and replacement. He aims to show the method behind these based on historical accounts in science, but as stated before, there is no set group of rules that govern this. Instead the development of hypotheses and theories that we take are integrated, comprehensive explanation of many ‘facts.’ These hypotheses and

The following essay aims to discuss the calms made by Alan Chalmers, discussing his inductive views of the scientific method stating that “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge…” and that “…Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven knowledge.” I will also be discussing Karl Popper’s opposing views on the scientific method, siding with his falsification method. I think that even though both sides are rational, Alan Chalmers clams are more practical and better for humans to continue to investigate new theories and laws of the universe. Therefore, I oppose Popper’s stance on the scientific method due to it discrediting non data driven fields sciences, labelling them as simply not science due to their inability to be disproven. To begin, the two opposing perspectives of the scientific method; inductivism and falsificationism, will be briefly explained with arguments for and against laid out.

“Analysis of the content of these ideologies suggests that ‘science’ is no single thing: characteristics attributed to science vary widely depending upon the specific intellectual or professional activity designated as ‘nonscience’, and upon particular goals of the boundary-work. The boundaries of science are ambiguous, flexible, historically changing, contextually variable, internally inconsistent, and sometimes disputed.” […] [S]cientific knowledge is at once theoretical and empirical, pure and applied, objective and subjective, exact and estimative, democratic (open for all to confirm) and elitist (experts alone confirm), limitless and limited (to certain domains of knowledge).” (Gieryn, 1983,

In this section we will compare and contrast Kuhn’s understanding of science with Popper’s understanding of science. These two methods are narrower when it comes to levels of scrutiny. They are also more open and willing to embrace change because they seek to change the status quo which is traditional science. Both scientists agree that the traditional method of science is too broad and ignores many different variables that could change the outcome of the results. They also concur on the idea that a subjective approach to science and reason is more suitable to reach a correct answer rather than shooting wildly in all directions and accepting the bullet that is closest to our target. Kuhn and Popper looked at traditional science as a method based on assumptions and estimates rather than exact truths or data. They do differ however in some ways. Kuhn does not believe that falsifying theories is necessary to ascertain the truth like Popper does. He simply believes that society is rapidly changing and therefore the methods of science must change also. Popper does not necessarily concern himself with sociological opinions or status quos. He focuses more on the procedures of traditional methods and works to disprove theories.