Value Neutral Orthodoxy

Many of science’s debates and theories are correlated with the objectivity of science. For instance, claims, methods, and experiments/results can act as a type of objective. Helen Longino believes that science is objective due to the ways of the scientific method being put to use and how we approach ideas with our opinions. Her article elaborates upon social dimensions of scientific knowledge that acknowledges objectivity is more of a social culture done within the community which allows criticism to be present. This allows unbiased theories and concepts to be eliminated or reasoned with. She points out the association between social and cognitive values and she offers a reusable approach to why science is objective rather than the two pre-existing

The author says that to be a scientist, we must have the courage to face doubt, and he backs up his idea with a 19th century French physiologist, Claude Bernard, “Science teaches us to doubt.” Saying that a scientist must be open-minded to the fact that their findings are not always correct, the author describes Einstein’s process and how he goes about it. There is sense of knowledge that Claude Bernard seems to have as he is titled, “the great French Physiologist”. Also, the qualification and power that comes with Einstein’s name is known worldwide and clearly apparent. Both of these names and titles, which are very credible, come together to make Barry’s argument more

Contrary to what many philosophers like Ernest Nagel believe all new scientific theories are able to be reduced or absorb to one already established. Philosopher Jerry Fodor rejects the reductionist view. In this paper I will present both philosophers arguments. I will also present my argument not all sciences are reducible to physics.

“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.”

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.

“Part of science is to be taken as significant and expressible within E, and the rest as non-significant and falling outside E. The E portion is subject to attributions of truth and falsehood, belief and evidence, whereas the non-E portion is not. Yet the fictionalist cannot spurn the latter wholly, since he is prepared to admit its functional ‘legitimacy’ and, hence, its interest for the scientist. At most, he can deny it to be either true or false.” (Scheffler 185).

Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were

While I was reading Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (GDSF) (Fleck, 1935), I played close attention to the Foreword written by Thomas Kuhn. As a novice in reading about the philosophy of science, the name Kuhn sounded familiar, but I was not able to remember which situations or disciplines were Kuhn’s areas of expertise. Moreover, I was sure that his name was related to philosophy, but I did not certainly know about his contributions to the development of the philosophy of science. Through inquiring more about the connections between Kuhn and Fleck, I have found some research that has related these philosophers ' ways of thinking. This research claims that Fleck and Kuhn have shaped the development of science as it is recognized nowadays, and their contributions are framed into what Brorson, and Andersen (2001) have called “scientific phenomena worlds” (p.109) . Some of this research compares both thoughts (e.g. Möẞner, 2011; Stark, 2012), while other conceives Fleck as precursor of Kuhn’s thought (e.g. Babich, 2003; Pérez Marín, 2010).

Thomas Kuhn was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20st century. Beginning his academic career in physics, he developed an interest in the history of science, which eventually saw him turn to the philosophy of science. His ideas were influenced strongly by the time he spent studying the works of historical scientists, such as Aristotle and Copernicus, in their original contexts. Kuhn were published his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. Kuhn describes the work of scientists in a scientific field as being conducted under the banner of a ‘paradigm’, which he defined as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model

Thomas Kuhn was an American philosopher, born in 1922, whom wrote about the distinction between normal science and revolutionary science. He was seen as a destroyer of logical empiricism throughout his career. This was because his work seemed to show how interesting it was to connect philosophical questions about science, with questions about the history of science. Throughout this essay, I will connect questions of philosophy and the history of science together by explaining Kuhn’s account of the structure of normal science and scientific revolutions.

“Cogito ergo sum” or If we could think about having thoughts and know it, this element alone would safeguard human existence and knowledge, but is knowledge really timeless, I don’t think so. Induction and falsification of theories of science accords inadequate depiction of how science evolves with respect to time. Another prospect was offered by Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996). He implied that science does not evolves by precise aggregation of facts and theories, but by dynamic transformations which he called paradigm shifts, as there’s always scope for innovation in inventions. As we find ourselves within not a philosophical or reasoning era, but a technological one where rapid change and exchange of ideas, information, knowledge, soft and hard data can barely be kept up with, we find ourselves in a position wherein yesterday's challenges are no longer challenges of today. The real concept of Kuhn’s significance doesn’t lies in the contagiousness of his perception but in the way he courageously reconstructed our thinking about humanity’s most formulated endeavor to perceive the world. Aforetime Kuhn’s perspective our mindset or shall I say attitude towards science was prevailed by philosophical theories concerning how should it evolves (the scientific method), together with a bold historical tale of scientific evolution as the annexation of new facts or theories to the wares of old ones Or as Max Planck said “A new scientific theory does not triumph by convincing its opponents

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.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

This book, ‘What is this Thing called Science?’ is assigned to write a review on the third edition which was published in the year 1999, 1st February by University of Queensland Press. This book is reflects up to date with day today’s contemporary trend and gives a basic introduction on the philosophy of science. This is a very comprehensive book explaining the nature of science and its historical development. It is very informative and a necessary reference when attempting to understand the how science has evolved throughout time. The book is also well organized, and each chapter is concluded with suggestions for further reading. This book is actually a review on the philosophy of science.

Through the constant pursuit of knowledge, people began to put a greater emphasis on empirical evidence rather than religion and its faith in the unobserved, and parts of these sacred texts began to be ignored and upon the discovery of new contradicting information, even re-interpreted. In the Age of Enlightenment (1600-1800), there was shift from accepting traditional beliefs to challenging them. This raises the knowledge question, to what extent has knowledge in the natural sciences become more objective and less dependent on religious knowledge over time?