Theories Are Not Always Be Proven With Facts?

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

William K. Clifford sets out to show in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence…” In this assignment, I aim to show deficiencies in his argument, and lack of key definitions needed in order to find his assumption and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as insufficient evidence. Moreover, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results.

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

As in any other domain, science seems to have endured a history of creating theories, proving those theories wrong, and creating new ones from that. This evolution of ideas and ways of thinking do not discredit science’s validity, but instead prove that we have grown and learned over time, through advancements in technology and greater understandings of why we are asking particular questions about the world (Godfrey-Smith, 2003). The underlying untrustworthy aspect regarding science is not in the scientific results themselves, but the discussion and human conclusions drawn from such findings.

Science is tentative and can be proven wrong or right if there is evidence to support

For this reason, the origins of the Earth, the heavens, the seas, plants and animals, and men and women were wrapped in unquestioned dogmas, some of which hold true today. It is only comparatively recently, in societies and civilizations possessed of scientific knowledge and methods of investigation, that such dogmas have come under question."

If we refer back to Gawande’s, Mistrust of Science we can predict that not all “science” is reliable science. There have been instances where we believed that “the sun moved across the sky” and that when being out in the cold, we have a greater chance of getting sick. These are all said to be facts, and they were even said by scientists. Though, we have to look deeper into the facts and the knowledge, because these statements are just hypotheses. They have yet to be proven. So when is science factual? When can we take the word of science and use it to gain more knowledge? This article suggested that “all knowledge is just probable knowledge. A contradictory piece of evidence can always emerge.” This is, in fact, true. Knowledge is just what you find to an answer once. Just because that specific question has been answered does not mean that it is the one and the only answer, there could be and probably are much more. For example, medicine. Medicine was once said to be all we had. There was once a time where if you got cancer you were bound to pass, or if you got AIDs or even HIV, there was no chance of survival after a short amount of time. Today, these answers have changed, due to the never-ending search for more knowledge in these

Belief can be best described as confidence in the truth. Throughout the centuries, philosophers have argued over support for religious beliefs. Some, like W.K. Clifford, claim that beliefs need evidence and reason behind them. Others, like William James, would offer a philosophical justification for religious faith, and would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs. After reading both sides of the argument, I lean towards James’s philosophical justification the most due to the fact that I too would argue against evidence and reason behind beliefs.

Confirmation bias has some truly terrifying implications. It can make people completely bind to the facts around them. In particular, this has negative implications for any study preformed, and for science in general. When preforming any kind of study, it is essential that you go in with no expectation for what you are going to find. I realize that this is somewhat impossible, but in order to have the best study that you can, it is imperative that you come as close as possible. When you go in thinking that you will find something, you will undoubtedly find some evidence that suggest you are right. If you only focus on that it is possible that you will disregard something that could benefit society. Peoples’ disposition to having confirmation bias is a huge setback to

A hypothesis (to be scientific) needs to be testable. Without the ability to test the hypothesis, we would never know whether it’s true or false. Truth and honesty are incredibly important values in science.

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

Since the dawn of mankind religion has been one of the most significant elements of a society’s social and cultural beliefs and actions. However, this trend has declined due to the general increase in knowledge regarding our the natural sciences. Where we had previously attributed something that we didn’t understand to the working of a higher power, is now replaced by a simple explanation offered by natural sciences. While advocates of Religion may question Natural Sciences by stating that they are based on assumptions, it is important to note the Natural Sciences are based on theories and principles which can be proven using mathematical equations and formulas. Faith however contrasts from the easily visible feasibility of data

‘The Ultimate protection against research error and bias is supposed to come from the way scientists constantly test and retest each others results’ – To What extent would you agree with this claim in the natural and human sciences.

The production of knowledge is a process that occurs through a sequence of related actions, these series of actions allows for the Ways of Knowing to interact in a way that works to develop the knowledge that is being produced. From the prescribed title we can claim that while the Ways of Knowing may appear to be acting in isolation when forming knowledge, they are actually working in a variety of different ways in the construction and formation. In some cases, the Ways of Knowing are interacting so closely together that it is often hard to differentiate between them, for example emotion and reason, or imagination and memory. Given the right circumstances faith can be isolated to a point where it can be acting by itself to produce knowledge. However, this knowledge is often deemed as unreliable, due to faith being seen as one of the more “subjective” ways of knowing. This inability to differentiate the ways of knowing from each other during the production of knowledge, raises the questions “Can any knowledge in any Area of Knowledge be produced by a single Way of Knowing?” and “Is it possible to distinguish between Ways of Knowing if they are working together?”. While reason is used in almost all production of knowledge, it is the other Ways of Knowing used that can determine whether the knowledge is reliable or not, as some Ways of Knowing are more subjective than others. This essay will attempt to

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