This reflects on the argument that Scientific Revolution's research was not politically and socially motivated. There is a question if the methods in modern science were originally 'pure science'? Or do their origins have personal motives behind
During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, many scientists had developed a new perspective on the world around them. Scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus envisioned a world where natural phenomenons could be proved through experimentation. Furthermore, the work of scientists during this time period were affected by the approval of political figures, the support from influential members of the church, and social factors that influenced the development and acceptance of new theories. To powerful political figures, scientific theories were regarded as an opportunity to gain power and money.
Scientific research is methodical. Created from a desire to make the unknown known, the “scientific method” was created in the 15th century based on common sense. As Barry analysis the scientific process, he says that the unknown must be made into a tool, even against one’s own ideas and beliefs. However, that concept is tenuous, so Barry uses logical situations to present the idea.
For example buying a miracle cream because the written testimonies say it works. 10. Inductive thinking is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. For example, all of my cousins have the talent to sing and so will all of their
Scientists take the unknown and make it known. The audience will better understand the scientific method if it seems logical. Including examples of Einstein, accepting scientific theories, and designing experiments show that the basis of Barry’s argument is factual. “Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested,” showing even the best of the best scientists study with uncertainty. Barry’s appeal to logos helps characterize the intellectual side of science.
Where does the preponderance of evidence point? Is the claimant playing by the rules of science? Is the claimant providing positive evidence? Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory? Finally, are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Doing this will lead to correct principles. The scientific method begins with observing a natural event. After this, one forms a hypothesis. The next step is to perform an experiment that
However, this scientific condition is extremely different from pseudo-science which wrongly claims itself as another branch of science without passing through scientific processes and experiment as well as being supported and corroborated by any scientific evidence and experiment. Pseudo-science does not at all depend on repetitive scientific experiment but simply on the old belief system that has never been proven and tested its reliability and validity. So, this pseudo-science is said to be dealing with ideology which is a set of normative belief as well as conscious and unconscious ideas and ideals, which are merely the imaginary ideas and existence of things relating to the real condition of existence. Both pseudo-science and ideologies have never been based on scientific knowledge, experiment, and processes
Prior to Kuhn’s 1962, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Karl Popper and Donald Campbell agreed the existence of specific thought processes derived from the evolutionary theory but, expanded their thinking when determining the scientific method is social (requiring language leading to social interactions which leads to rational endeavors or cognition), according to Wettersten (2016). This advanced from earlier thinking that scientists’ observations were the source of all knowledge (Wettersten). Thomas S. Kant (1962), on the other hand, felt the theories, facts, and methods scientists were compiling were neither historically organized nor were the scientists of a specific field, being educated in a rigorous and rigid manner. Kant believed that normal science problems did not lead to new findings, rather it was addressing only the theoretical side of science (Hacking, 2012) whereby research data was being made to fit in with the existing knowledge. Kant introduces
The concept of “falsifiability” come from a famous philosopher named Karl Popper. Falsification is the inherent ability to prove that a statement, hypothesis, or theory is false. He developed the concept of falsification because he realized that some theories could never go wrong and could easily take in any instances of behavior or change helpful to the theory. Falsification allows for important groundbreaking discoveries and achievements which would later on lead to scientific growth. Theories that are falsifiable are to be clear and specific.
A theory could only be falsifiable or non-falsifiable and falsified or non-falsified. There is no scientific reason to prefer a unfalsified tested theory above another untested theory. There does not exist “more likely to be true”, it can only be falsified or non-falsified. A theory that has never been tested at all is just as non-falsified as a theory that has been tested many times. Popper does not allow us to prefer one non-falsified theory above another on scientific ground which causes
Hume’s problem of induction tells us that we are unable to know if a scientific claim, formed from inductive reasoning, is true . Because science often follow a pragmatic theory of truth, whereby a proposition is true if it is useful, and science have produced mostly useful results, we can assume without delving into arguments about pragmatism, that the scientific method is reliable. Thus, following Goldman’s process reliabilism, a scientist is justified in his claims if he uses the scientific method. One caveat is that if evidence uncovered objects to the claims made, despite using a reliable method, the belief is a false
The uncanny differences between the two are just mere definitions of the larger realm of science and pseudoscience. Science provides proof of existence by demonstrating the validity of findings by providing supporting evidence within a natural phenomenon. It also provides explanation to the “how” and also provides critical tests and valid results to support an explanation. On the other hand,
He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.