Views On Germany's Defeat And The Extinction Of Dinosaurs

Stephen Gould’s essay “Sex, Drugs, Disasters, and the Extinction of the Dinosaurs” completely agrees with Joseph Williams and Gregory Colomb’s essay “Argument, Critical Thinking, and Rationality.” Gould’s essay deals with three theories for the extinction of the dinosaurs, two of which he argues are entirely invalid because they are not in accordance with the basic rules of argument laid out by Williams and Colomb in their essay. Gould also states that the third theory of dinosaur extinction, natural disaster, follows all the rules that Williams and Colomb espouse, and thus is a sound argument. Gould, Williams, and Colomb all state that the world has a problem with irrational arguments being shoved down people’s throats, and call for a

It is said that there has been rare and precious Dinosaur bones discovered in the Eromanga sea, this almost proves that Dinosaurs once roamed around the shores. Also many of the significant events in Geological history, over the past 600 million years can be observed at Hallett Cove. Some of the oldest rocks have been found in these seas. The finding of the Ediacaran could potentially mean that there can be dinosaur fossils found in the ocean, or even that relatives of the ediacaran could be considered fossils and could be found in the sea.

Opinion: “Opinions are intensely personal, so it is understandable that people have strong feelings about theirs. (Ruggiero, 2010, p.34). Your opinion may not be the truth but for an individual it is a personal view and not any one else’s.

In, your post you state that you agree with Novick’s idea of objectivity and abandoning our biases to give a neutral perspective of an event, however, my question is can a historian present this idea of objectivity without leaning to a specific view? I think that while a historian can present both sides of a perspective of an event, I consider there will always be some bias that the historian will lean towards. This bias relates to Haskell’s statement “that most of us cannot avoid constructing the world regarding right and wrong,” on objectivity (Haskell, 151). In a sense, this connects to your supportive view of Haskell’s view that history should not be neutral. By having different views on historical topics. I believe this allows new questions, assertions, and research to be discovered leading a historian to a new viewpoint on an

I support the idea that scientists’ theories cannot be completely objective, because scientist are people and everyone has opinions and biases not matter what they say. An example of this in the article would be how Blumenbach’s teacher, Linnaeus had his basic four classifications for humans in which had characterized them by their color, humor, and posture. His biased views really

Not all is known and the facts passed down may not reveal the whole truth. History is biased and can easily be manipulated by those with more power, and it is a modern historian’s job to weed through the commonly accepted information, and try to find the truth. If the truth is not found, then they present alternative theories to broaden the world’s knowledge on the possible course of events in the

Kitcher rejects relying on objective science, a science that sometimes falsely labels diseases according to society views and biases. For example, masturbation and homosexuality were falsely labeled as disorders. The outcomes of objective science are unreliable and bring about social prejudices instead of promoting health and life .

As stated before, history is inaccurate if there is no evidence to support. Historians rely heavily upon primary and

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.

An objective perspective is one based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective relies on personal feeling, emotion, and aesthetics. Helen Longino defends that science is objective because of the natural social nature of the scientific method. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses and collecting data to either approve or refute a hypothesis. Hypotheses are constructed either by one individual or a group of scientists and are therefore subjective Subjectivity and uncertainty lead to competing theories that are pared down since some are proved to be inconsistent with new observations. Allowing subjectivity is a positive aspect of the scientific method. It allows room for taking risks and therefore leading to hypotheses and discoveries that prove to be valid. Relying solely on objective science can lead to something called a Value-Laden Thesis. This occurs when scientists cannot gather evidence and assess theories without making circumstantial value judgments. “Science is a source of objective, value-free, facts about the world. Science has nothing to do with values, either in the statement of its

Some objectivity is indeed possible. Adopting other points of view is part of our daily life, but this

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -- Marcus Aurelius

Some deny that there is an objective truth because they are doubtful about knowing the truth. Of course one may never know what the truth is. They could be incorrect. But to be wrong, there has to be an objective truth to make it right. To be incorrect something has to be true and that that truth is wrong.

Dinosaur extinction: An analysis of events and theories that possibly led to the dinosaurs' demise.

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat