People should not be allowed to limit or silence anyone else’s thoughts and expression of these thoughts. By silencing a person for a particular opinion would be hurting humanity. Mill claims, “if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true.” Mill is claiming that any suppressed opinion could be true, and no one has the authority to decide that others should not be able to hear these opinions. For this would hurt humanity because one human being does not have the authority to decide an issue for all. This would keep others from coming up with their own opinions on the subject.
What is the science? What are differences between science and pseudoscience? The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. Science attained through study or practice and can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics.
They claim that everyone is selfish because of human nature, which is a week point for this theory; given that morality encourages people to consider the interest and wellbeing of others. Additionally, true altruism still exists and all humans are not selfish. Thirdly, certain individuals agree that culture determines what actions are morally right or wrong; and are advocates of Cultural Relativism. Their actions are not guided by a list of moral rules or universal norms. A key flaw in this theory is that, it leaves no place for moral advancement since, individuals of dissimilar cultures are not encouraged to share their view concerning the
In this context, it means that not only will the theory be unable to expect or explain such cognitive errors, it might also be incapable to describe the intentional states of a person executing these mistakes (Stich as cited in Funkhouser, n.d.). Since there is no guarantee that human beings are rational agents at all time, Dennett’s intentional system theory is false as the theory is only valid when the intentional stance has been adopted towards an entity in which we believe that after adopting the following theory, we’re only able to foretell and define its behaviour by giving treatment to it as though it were a rational agent with activities are administered by its views and needs (Kind,
The faculty of philosophy of science highlights and debates various theories to which people are said to derive scientific knowledge. Some of these theories include empiricism and positivism, inductivism and many others. All of these outlooks have very different approaches to the topic of the derivation of scientific knowledge. For example, the empiricists and positivists alike believe that scientific knowledge is derived from the facts of experience, whereas Inductivists believe that it should be deduced from theories and claims that have been inductively inferred from observations. Clearly, both of these theories have their allure but at the same time neither is clear of problems.
Theories of philosophies of science juxtaposed with theories from the philosophies of Literature will aid in the debate that both the perception and the recording of reality are two sides of the same coin, each with their own guidelines and discourses (as we shall observe later on in this dissertation). Several theories including the debate between realism and relativism, Karl Popper’s Falsification theory debasing the Inductivism theory , the difference between pseudo-science and non-science and other philosophical testing hypotheses will be analysed and employed as an overarching theme to understanding the works of
If we be taught from these experiments the underlying techniques that can form our conduct, we may be much less susceptible to strong social influences in actual- existence occasions in which we must pick between adhering to our own standards or being conscious of others. In Stanley Milgram’s experiments, humans torn between obeying an experimenter and responding to one more’s pleas to discontinue the shocks often selected to obey orders, despite the fact that obedience supposedly intended harming the opposite person. Folks were
It takes patience, effort and practice to unlearn these implicit biases. However, people rarely publicly recognize the implicit biases they possess in fear of their responses being socially undesirable. Therefore, they tend to report what they think they should say. It is vital to acknowledge the hidden biases we possess. If we keep these biases unrecognized, positive growth will never occur.
First, there usually is no way to check whether that person actually bought and used the product, which makes it unreliable. Second, there have been quite a few scandals in which companies were shown paying people to write favourable testimonials for them. This could lead to biased and over-positive reviews. Last but not least is the fact that testimonials are never representative of the consumer base - some people might rave about quality, where others will bash the price. The main problem is: consumers will always differ and can be easily influenced, therefore presenting their opinions and testimonials in advertisements is unreliable and
Scientific Argumentation Scientific argumentation refers to a complex learning practices of the individual towards science through discourse and scientific reasoning. Obviously, arguments forwarded to the audience in mind. Hence, scientific argumentation is a social process which consist of generating and criticizing arguments (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999; Nussbaum, Sinatra, & Poliquin, 2008). Engaging in argumentation, at its core, is a practice of reason giving, a curious journey to understand science through scientific reasoning and critical thinking (Kind & Osborne, 2017). Such engagements in scientific discourse make student to act like a professional scientist and develop a culture to accept or reject any claim based on the inference