These thoughts and ideas automatically generate a (subconscious or conscious) judgement towards a question. This judgement leads into a framework, narrowing unpredicted possibilities down and therefore limiting possible answers. Also, every question that is being asked is asked for a reason. If there were to be such a thing as a neutral question, why would anyone feel the need to ask it? Thus, all questions that are being asked, are asked with an intention, and are pointed in a certain direction of the answer, which limits the possibilities of finding the answer.
Neutrality is often understood as the absence of bias. If one is truly neutral, one’s opinion on the matter is often resolved as having no opinion on the matter, as it is defined: “not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.” Thus, the implication of a neutral question is that the aim is to gather knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than to use the knowledge to confirm preconceived assumptions. Questions meant to influence answers are ‘leading questions,’ which can be defined as “a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer.” The prescribed title suggests that the existence of a neutral question is impossible, and that all questions are leading questions that intend
Scientific research seems very factual and straight-forward. In reality, science deals with uncertainty, something that, when not used in the right way, creates weaknesses. The uncertainty of scientific research allows scientists to explore intellectually as well as creatively, and “venture into the unknown” to create the known. In his account from The Great Influenza, John M. Barry uses formal diction, strategically placed rhetorical questions, and an appeal to logos to characterize scientific research. Scientists must use a plethora of experimentation and repetition to seek out answers.
“If we mean scientific method-controlled experiments in laboratories with disprovable hypotheses and reproduceable results-lots of us don’t do that. I don’t do that but there’s long been an anthropological line: let’s take the term in its German sense, which just means trying to put order on knowledge. I’m totally comfortable with that-I claim science”. These are the words of Robert Weller, the chair of the College of Arts and Science anthropology department about the ongoing debate on the sense on which anthropology is a science and to what extent [Rich Barlow, BU Today, 18 May 2011]. This has been a long standing debate in the anthropological world and science circles.
Scholars who propose intelligent design try to evade the topic of God and the Holy Bible, and instead present it as a scientific hypothesis. Science involves gathering of empirical facts which are subject to critical reasoning based on the evidence they present to form a hypothesis. Moreover, for a theory to be scientific it has to be consistent and sparing in its explanations. The theory should describe and explain an observed phenomenon which should be subject to test and falsification. It should also be progressive as to continue previous theories (Fuller, 2007).
1) Neutral observation is close to impossible, but let us own up, appreciate this inability of ours and go into the conversation by introducing our perceptions (e.g. “According to me …” or “I observed …”). While the observation itself may not match reality completely, it is true that it is what you personally have observed.
Personally I believe that scientists should be held morally responsible for the applications of their discoveries. My belief is based on a simple logic that if we are giving credit to scientists for their important and beneficial discoveries then on the other side of the coin, they should even be held responsible for the destruction that their discoveries cause to the world. For the major beneficial discoveries this scientists are showered with Nobel prizes and rewards. For example Jonas Salk for discovery of polio vaccine, Isaac Newton for the
History has to be scientific and logical in nature. Otherwise how can anyone know what evidence would prove his or her discovery. For example, the scientific method of observing, questioning, experimenting, etc. according to me facts are only proved when assumptions are made. In forming an assumption, a scientist must observe other experiments, evaluate them and then make a selection to form a category.
He argued that the most important responsibility of science is to assist human societies deal with troubles and manage their environments. But Dewey idea that it was unscientific for scientists to direct their work according to particular practical troubles. To a certain extent, science is the study of a particular subset of properties of natural relationships dealings and associations, called by Dewey instrumental properties. Science is most successful in increasing our capacities for problem solving and changing our environment when it is
Natural sciences have particular criteria that must be met before something is taken into thought. There must be a logical technique and procedure of: observation, making a hypothesis and examinations. From that point a law or idea is made which aggregates into a theory. It must be controllable, quantifiable, and repeatable to be viewed as a substantial theory. Scientists don't fundamentally accept their speculations to be totally genuine, however it is, as they would see it the best natural clarification accessible.