There Has Been Great Debate On Whether Science Should Be

We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific

Science is revised constantly; progressive observations that support and expand on existing ideas are documented. When new knowledge is interpreted by scientists, they must perform a series of experimental trials. These observations can either confirm or contradict the analysis, both are beneficial to resolving the experiment. Scientific explanations are dependent of proof. For example, when a new theory is published, the scientific method for the examination is accessible for others to review. The public has the capacity to acquire the experiment's reports and contribute that data to their own hypothesis. Science is justified through the combination of solutions. Current ideas are continually challenged by others attempting to modify and simplify them into a universal

As scientists travel into the future, they are lead by ambition, imagination, and genius. In their quest to find uses for their rapidly expanding knowledge they often leave behind their morals. Failing to carefully consider the possible paths their research will follow, scientist often find that they have gone too far with out realizing it. Their creations exceed their expectations. When faced with this situation it is up to the scientist

“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.”

John William Draper, in the History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, states, “The history of Science is not a mere record of isolated discoveries; it is a narrative of the conflict of two contending powers, the expansive force of the human intellect on one side, and the compression arising from traditionary faith and human interests on the other.” John William Draper brings up a strong truth behind the progression of science. Human faith inevitably conflicts with the progression of science. One may think that religion is the moral part of human belief and science is the advancement of intellect. It is inevitable that morals and the advancement of intellect would. Emotions and morals sometimes may overpower what the advancement of science would lead to. This concept is present in the ethical controversy involved with the Catholic Church and stem cell research. The moral and heart of many members of the Catholic Church easily disables the acceptance and support of stem cell research. This is unfortunate because stem cell usage and research has tremendous potential in helping those that suffer from disease. Stem cell research will advance medical fields and assist in finding cures for deadly ailments. Many followers of the Catholic Church view the science of stem cell research as killing innocent lives, however a sense of the faithful needs to come into action in order to look passed tradition and history to

Summer for the Gods concentrates on the Dayton, Tennessee Scopes trial, or "Monkey Trial," of 1925. The trial was over a Tennessee law that banned teaching evolution in public schools. The American Civil Liberties Union protested the law with teacher, John Scopes, who agreed to help. The"trial of the century" brought together two famous political enemies, William Jennings Bryan, who led the anti-evolution crusade, and Clarence Darrow, who was known as the best criminal defense lawyer and evolution supporter. The author presents the history of controversy that led to the trial. Fossil discoveries, the rise of religious fundamentalism, and increased attendance in public high schools influenced the anti-evolution movement due to the

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.

The general definition of science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments. On the contrary, it is much more than that. Much like art, it holds a sense of subjectivity. It is an abstract paradigm that requires the input of one’s personal beliefs and values to help it progress. It is much more than just facts and theories of how the world works, but also a prime representation of the ethics and beliefs of the scientists that help mold it today. Science is a database for factual knowledge on the natural world, furthermore, it also incorporates the environment it has created. The environment consists of the particular people, behaviors, and struggles of the scientific community. Even though science incorporates many thoughts and ideas, it does not contain other ideas. Science does not hold a moral category. It does not define what is considered right and what is considered wrong. It merely provides information on certain ideas for further understanding. Any theories and applications of it can lead to other subjects. This idea also applies to what the acquired scientific knowledge is used for. Even though the ideas of complexity and subjectivity are present in both science and art, the concept of aesthetic should only be important for art. Despite requiring organization and general cleanliness, science does not need to pass the eye test. Science should be represented through proper data and its analysis and the non factual features need to have a rational reasoning. To judge or base an idea on its appeal does not equal to

Currently, since scientists have valued facts differently it is essentially an implication that no risk factor is at the moment convincing enough. Hence, rather than disagreeing upon which factor is essentially the cause, scientists have come to a mutual understanding that “none of the identified factors seem to be suitable” (Hempel, Chambers, Bagnall, & Forbes, 2007). The example of this chronic condition represents that viewing facts from different opinions and perspectives is not necessarily a mechanism for disagreement: but it is a step toward experts agreeing that further research is crucial. Consequently, the Natural Sciences prove that different values do not always lead to disagreement and hence varying perspectives is not a dependable mechanism for disagreement. This is because scientists do not always require personal knowledge to draw conclusions, and are usually open to considering varying

Conduct of the people within both NASA and Morton Thiokol with respect to the risk management was unplanned. NASA management had to make a choice at the last minute even when everyone agreed that a disastrous possibility existed. It was understood that the duties of the engineers and managers were clearly defined. Much of the evidence relating to the tragedy was dismissed. Conduct of the entire project team could be interpreted as group

One issue that Carl Hempel addresses in his book, “Philosophy of Natural Science,” is an argument that scientist should provisionally accept a hypothesis that is confirmed, although not proven, is completely warranted. This argument is driven by the theory that if a hypothesis has successfully passed many different tests, then it should completely reasonable to accept even if it may eventually change or dismissed as determined incorrect. Either way, a confirmed test should lead to successful and positive results and possible a future complete and accurate answer. I agree with his argument and believe that scientists can rationally accept hypotheses as I will discuss in further detail throughout this paper. Hempel believed in “Sophisticated

It is expected that science should give objective and reasonable explanations for any phenomena. However, every treatise is the result of thorough work of a scholar and obviously contains someone’s personal opinion, in other words, bias. Bias in general is described as the influence of one’s beliefs and attitudes on his actions and decisions (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Staats, 2016). The question is for what purpose is it done and how does it influence people’s perceptions?

Agreeing with Nicholas Rescher, who has a point of view on the values are inherent meaning with present day science cannot speak for future science because it is impossible to make any secure inferences from the substance of science at one time from a significantly different time. It's a scientific revolution that can never be precluded with unblinking confidence what sorts of resources and conceptions science of the future will use or not.

As people, we come with earlier knowledge and understandings on subjects and topics of study, “Science” being one of them. We make presumptions, based on either reasonable evidence or that our thoughts and ideas are known as true by others. Through this we have come to understand and define science as its aims, leaving its definition, whether consciously or unconsciously, unchallenged. We have taken advantage of the label that we have set for science, as well as its goals, and failed to look at them further.

Scientific responsibility can be described as the duties or obligations are scientist or researcher has when conducting his or her research. Science relies on objective methods to gather empirical data without the interference of subjectivity or other factors affecting the results obtained. Science is an extremely important tool for humanity as the discoveries made in the scientific community can greatly impact the lives of individuals through advancements in therapies to novel drug discoveries. However, the other side of science poses a potential threat to same individuals it often intends to serve. This can be the case when results are published which can potentially pose threats to potentially large groups of people. It is therefore asked whether scientists should be ultimately responsible for the research that they publish, or could it be that they have a duty to publish research regardless of its implications in the pursuit of scientific advancement.