With this being said, the author claims that scientists agree that evolution did happen and it has been an
As postulated by Max Planck (1858–1947), the quantum theory “was the most fundamental innovation in physical science in the first half of the twentieth century, because of the establishment of a new system of physics and the construction of a philosophical worldview that appeared to deny the possibility of a complete understanding of reality” (“Quantum mechanics”,2005). In fact, the quantum theory is a probabilistic act; the act of finding a small particle in the whole universe. In other words, the theory deals with a particle as if it is present anywhere in the universe, but once it is observed, it is found. This theory was attacked as false in 1935 by Albert Einstein (1879-1955) as he said that “the theory offers a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the God’s secret.
The mechanical philosophy of the Scientific Revolution was a contrasting philosophy of nature to Aristotelianism. This is due to the fact that mechanical philosophies held that nature acts like a machine rather than, as Aristotle believed, a living organism. However, mechanical philosophy did not wholly reject the ancient beliefs, due to the fact that seventeenth century philosophies were based off of an ancient mechanism. This ancient mechanism argued that there existed imperceptible particles.
We never underestimate the power of an itsy-bitsy atom, which contrives the mysterious, gigantic universe. The analogously minuscule cell is regarded true biological atom, which institutes many intricate systems of our complex human body and its creation, my inheritance genes provoked my inquisitive mind to dive into the understanding of the complexity of our organs. Up to elementary school, my cumulative treasure of science pertained only theories. My hands-on practical started during 7th grade, I dissected a cow eyeball to learn its anatomical structures. Next dissection was a frog, first time in my life I saw internal organs by naked eyes, and to see the circulatory system I dissected an Earth worm.
In conclusion, the characteristics of the scientific method are far from few. Most distinctly, science deals with the uncertainty of the unknown, attempting to make it known. Though complicated, Barry explains his beliefs on the scientific method with strong diction to show the formality of science, rhetorical questions to show the uncertainty, and logos to show the intellect of science. His rhetorical strategies help the audience understand the plethora of characteristics in the realm of
Falsificationism, though, helped me to understand that induction is good for everyday life, but not for science. I learnt that it is possible to falsify someone’s theory or my theory be falsified, but Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ approaches made me understand that it is better not to abandon a theory even if it is falsified. Research programmes influenced me mostly, since the fundamental hypothesis of the hard core and the supplementary assumptions of the protective belt, can be better applied not only to physics, but also natural sciences. For me science has to be explained in an objective way, so the anarchistic theory of science did not influence me, because it talks about individual’s freedom and subjectivity. Finally, the modern approaches of Bayesianism and New Experimentalism did not satisfy me at all and they did not help me in order to define what science is.
1. “‘The ancient teachers of this science,’ said he, ‘promised impossibilities, and performed nothing. The modern masters promise very little they know that metals cannot be transmuted, and that the elixir of life is a chimera. But these philosophers, whose hands seem only made to dabble in dirt, and their eyes to pore over the microscope or crucible, have indeed performed miracles” (74). —The word “he” refers to M. Waldman, a man who the narrator refers to as “short” and his voice as “sweetest I ever heard”.
The Masters degree at the end of his name is NOT for biology it is for in bio-technology. Brian Thomas only has an Under-graduate Bachelor 's degree in biology. This means on a scholarly level Brian Thomas is NOT qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject of biology like a PHD can. However is qualified to give an under-educated opinion on it. Unless his paper is published in a Scientific journal and found to be valid by other biologists his opinions are nothing but typical subpar un-thought-out Christian apologetics at best.
Although he was careful to show respect for Darwin’s ability to see both sides of his own hypotheses, Dr. Whitmore did not hesitate to point out numerous areas where the theory of evolution does not align with actual scientific data. He noted, for example, that Darwin predicted limitless numbers of transitional organisms in the fossil record due to the processes of natural selection. However, significant numbers of transitional organisms do not appear in the fossil record until the Cenozoic Era, which, according to a Creationist worldview, corresponds to the strata laid
At the places that people believe that evolution is happening it is often times just an adaptation of an animal to fit its environment better. These things are occurrences that have been observed by people and have been recorded, but evolution is a very large change in an animal over millions of years. No one has observed evolution because what is thought to be evolution is just an adaptation to live better in an animal’s surroundings. The only way for something to be a fact is for it to be observed and then tested to make sure it can be repeated multiple times. Scientists cannot recreate evolution, therefore, it can only be a theory and can only be trusted if a person has faith that it is true.
Unlike philosophical assumptions, scientific theories can be tested scientifically or empirically. Scientific theories are tested through the process of verification and falsification. Verification occurs through observation and is the confirmation of proposition. Falsification also involves observation. However, falsification involves disproving a proposition.
A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals. This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.
Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.