Therefore it helps us to always reconsider and reevaluate any action. The major weaknesses of correspondence include; the objection recognizes moral truth, but rejects the idea that reality contains moral fact for moral truths to corresponds to. Furthermore, the logical positivists recognized logical truth, but reject logical facts. What I found appealing about coherence theory is the fact that it explains how scientists can make claims about the very large and small objects using a system of claims already accepted to be true. With this, scientists could save a lot and even move to perfection with necessary going through much protocol.
This shows that the intention of science was to help people understand the world, not to cause harm to others. Bacon supported the sciences and believed scientific knowledge should be easy to access and understand. Charleton, a doctor and natural philosopher, wrote that the activities of atoms were “impossible to imagine” (Doc 8). This shows that people felt the urge to observe the laws of nature because they were curious. Charleton supported science and believed that people should make scientific discoveries to explain everyday occurrences.
Intrinsic factors critically considered when people think about the main components of success. However, Malcolm Gladwell, a famous writer, contradicts this tendency through the book, Outliers. The book, Outliers insists that extrinsic factors define success rather than the intrinsic ones. Nonetheless, Gladwell himself goes against the topic of Outliers in his assertion: “if you work hard enough and assert yourself, and use your mind and imagination, you can shape the world to your desires (Gladwell, 2008).” The assertion implies that individuals could achieve success only with those intrinsic factors. Gladwell’s assertion is wrong because people can’t achieve success without an opportunity of relative age, an opportunity to have practical
Evolution doesn’t import to be anything. It is part of natural history. It is the Darwinists who claim that evolution can be described in terms of natural selection, and that natural selection is a biological mechanism. For reasons why natural selection should not be considered a mechanism. Furthermore, the claim that “those who believe in God regard him as a personal Agent who, among other things, designs and creates mechanisms” are palpably wrong.
In the same way, humanists oppose racism, sexism, torture, unfair imprisonment, persecution because of beliefs and inequalities in wealth and education or everything that stand in the way of human welfare, development and progress. Therefore, the core aim of humanism is to improve human lives by fulfilling equal human rights. How was the world created? Humanists believe in the scientific method, which means observation and experiment to find out how the world works. Therefore, the belief that The Big Bang theory was how the universe began is dominant in humanism.
However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will. Generally, free will is a process in our mind that exist despite circumstances and changes in the environment. Some scientists believe that there is no such thing as free will; and describe free will as a random event which occurs in our brain. However, there is at least one counter-argument against it which is human tendency to take responsibility for what he does and going beyond other expectations. Moreover, human beings cannot predict the future and know whether their actions are right or wrong.
The paradigm of Positivism seems to be combined of Rationalism and Empiricism. Positivism focus on a priori knowledge same Rationalism but in difference point, Positivist beliefs in nature of reality that can be verified by science process but don’t belief in the innate. The innate knowledge seems to be skeptically for them and trying to examination about the reality for support warranted beliefs. While Empiricism is rejected the innate knowledge but emphasizes truth-reliable process. It’s look like the one of science process, Such measurement which needs to be reliability and generalize outcomes.
Modernist worldview Modernity includes a search for absolute, unquestionable, rational certainty, based on logic and evidence alone. (Of course, many “modern philosophers” admitted such may be ultimately impossible for finite beings, but that didn’t stop them from holding it as an ideal and continuing the search.)  Post-modern worldview Postmodern is simply the rejection of certainty in the synthetic realm, even in science. Postmodern is also defined by the belief that all truth claims are infected by “belief”. That is, there is no such thing as “a view from nowhere.” Even what counts as “logic” and “evidence” is value-dependent, arising from within a story, a perspective.
All these criticisms are supported by the criteria on Popper’s (1971) demarcation, as it concerns the logical structure of theories (Hansson, 2008). He claims that a theory may only be deemed to be scientific if it can be falsified (Popper, 1971; Hansson, 2008). The philosopher, Karl Popper (1971), is famously known for his theory of falsification theory and according to him, many applied sciences, especially social science, are not scientific due to their lack of potential for falsification. In other words, a theory must consist of an inherent testability so as to be proven false and thus conceivably refuted. Not only that, it must be able to make predictions that can be accessed through numerous testings (Popper, 2002; Hansson, 2008).
In this instance he specifies that facts can only be seen “in relation to a given species… [and] cannot be defined in abstracto or absolutely” (147). This may seem, at first, to be a negation of scientific objectivity, but it is instead a correction of what Durkheim believes to be an “often misunderstood” (147) idea. The objectivity Durkheim is dealing with, though not entirely devoid of external influences, is still scientific. He reflects that this form of objectivity is not unlike the objectivity of biology in which “it has never occurred to anybody to think that what is normal in a mollusc should be also for a vertebrate” (147). This must then not be a contradiction within Durkheim’s thinking, but, instead, an expansion and clarification of the typical definition of