Individuals are all socialised in different ways supporting our formation of knowledge and conceptualization of the environment around us. They all have different experiences and cultural upbringing, which influences our observation. This brings the concept of Interpretivism into analysis. This subsequent essay first analyses how we are socialised through our culture and prior experiences as examples. Secondly, analysis on how knowledge progresses through falsification is addressed.The last aspect which is considered is how knowledge progresses through a paradigm shift. Positivism and Interpretivism are both ideologies concerned with the nature of ontology and epistemology. Epistemology means how individuals acquire aspects and conceive knowledge. …show more content…
A paradigm is the most comprehensive framework that prescribes the rules, procedures and values informing science.It is another word for a pattern. (Jacobs & Farrell, 2001). As explained, scientific growth is a continuous process where paradigms are replaced by new ones, once the old ones are refuted. The reason why they are replaced is because a problem arises. When there is no solution, an evaluation has to take place. This period is called a crisis because this is the stage where researchers brain storm about how to solve the issue at hand and form a new paradigm. Once this solves the problem, a new paradigm is formed, called a paradigm shift. (Anonymous,[b],n.d.). It is important to analyse if any two paradigms can be compatible with one another. It is vital to define the word ‘compatible’.This word means when two views can coexist with one another. (English Dictionary and Thesaurus, n.d.). However, as mentioned above, two paradigms cannot coexist because in order for a new paradigm to be manifested, the other paradigm has to be seen as false. The new paradigm being constructed contains the problem that has been solved from the last one. An example of this is Positivism and Interpretivism. Both of these are seen to be theories that work with epistemology and ontology. However, these cannot coexist with each other because they both have opposing views on knowledge.Interpretivism believes that the problem with Positivism is that science starts with observation and that knowledge is seen as true. Interpretivism works with this problem constructing a new paradigm known asfalsificationism. This confirms that science commences with a problem and observation is used to falsify theories. These two theories, however, can be said to be commensurable because they have the same foundation which is epistemology and ontology, believing that observation yields empirical
The experiential source hypothesis and cultural source hypothesis are two opposing theories for the acquisition of human knowledge, understanding, and belief. The experiential source hypothesis suggests that all knowledge and cognitive abilities are derived from personal experiences with the world. According to this hypothesis, our understanding of the world is built up gradually through our sensory experiences and interactions with the environment. In contrast, the cultural source hypothesis suggests that human knowledge and cognition are shaped primarily by cultural factors, including language, education, and socialization. This hypothesis suggests that our understanding of the world is largely determined by the culture in which we live, and that our cognitive abilities are shaped by the cultural practices and beliefs that surround us.
Mankind does not come to the world with everything made sense already, we give ‘sense’ and meanings to those things. It is a dialectic process that requires three steps: 1) Externalizations; 2) Objectivation; and 3) Internalization. Collectively we made a world for ourselves, we learn how to relate to and shape the
Positivism helps discover and accept the science over theology. Also, faith that the scientific method could provide the source of knowledge and the solutions to society’s problem. For the novel My Lobotomy by Howard Dully, it shows a perfect example how these scientists started to study humans like nature. When it comes to understanding
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
Scientific Research and the Unknown Scientific research can be defined using a number of different methods. John M. Barry writes about the scientific process in The Great Influenza, and he uses several different tactics in characterizing it. Barry uses metaphors and unusual syntax in order to characterize scientific research as uncertain and unknown. Barry compares scientific research to venturing into the wilderness in order to characterize it as a journey into the unknown. He begins this comparison by explaining that the best scientists “move deep into a wilderness region where they know almost nothing, where the very tools and techniques needed to clear the wilderness, to bring order to it, do not exist” (Barry 26-29).
(Henriques 2002). One of the reasons for misconception is from informal play during early years where later can cause misconceptions when the children learn about physics (Allen 2014). Also, when several misconceptions gather within a child’s head that link with one another and makes sense to the child this results in the child thinking that it is the correct answer because each misconception supports the other. (Allen, 2014) Constructivism is where information is not just processed but instead an individual will look for existing constructions and look at where the new
When Bryman describe ontology view, he introduces the objectivism and constructivism as two antithetical dimensions. (p22) However, Saunders 2009 p.119 advocates that positivism can be understood through both ontology and epistemology views. It raises the confusion whether positivism should belong to ontology view and be connected to objectivism like what Bryman said or positivism should not be tied to objectivism and can also be comprehended through epistemology view like what Saunders proposed. In 2014, Hanson stated that the root of positivism could be constructive instead of being tied only to objectivism.
Theoretical virtues are said to be traits that are representative of virtues pertaining to theories, beliefs, and hypotheses. Since time immemorial, philosophers of science have undertaken multiple methodologies that use these theoretical virtues as a collective to establish an objective standard, which is further used to compare theories in order to sought out which theory is the most competent. However, even though this methodology has been practiced repeatedly over the years, a certain issue that always arises is that there has to be a distinction made between two types of theoretical values: cognitive and pragmatic. A virtue is said to be cognitive when it is indicative of the truth or is the truth. This is different from when a theory
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.
What are the varying explanations of men’s involvement in criminal activity? Savian Campbell University of Trinidad and Tobago CRIM2004 Gender and Crime Abstract This research paper is intended to analyse the various explanations for men’s involvement in criminal activity using a gendered approach. It looks at the masculinity of crime and seeks to answer the burning question that has been ignored for years (what is it about men that causes them to commit crime?) The notion of masculinity and the typical characteristics which are associated with it are discussed and a linkage between masculinity and crime is made.
When an epistemology is based on the positivism philosophy, the objectives and the nature of knowledge assumes that everything is based on causality when it comes to knowledge that exists. Secondly, an epistemology based on realism assumes that the nature of knowledge is based on the observable phenomenon (Saunders & Tosey, The layers of research design, 2013). Essentially, insufficient data provides inaccurate information, and some phenomenon may require proper inaccurate information were not collected effectively. Third, when an epistemology is based on the interpretivism philosophy the nature of knowledge is based on the social phenomenon and subjective meanings that change the meaning based on the situation. Finally, when an epistemology is based on pragmatism, the nature of knowledge is dependent on the nature of the questions that are asked and not the nature of the
Positivism can be understood as the idea that the methods of the natural sciences should be used to study human and social matters. In this essay I will be explaining how positivism gave substance to the idea whilst paying particular attention to the role of induction and deduction. Positivism has had some influence in Education and the essay will attempt to outline and critically discuss some of these influences. The knowledge that we acquire is from observations with the aid of our senses.
Rationalism and empiricism are two methods that can be understood under the concept of epistemology, psychology and philosophy of psychology to understand where the source of knowledge comes from. “In psychology and its philosophy, empiricism and rationalism concern the sources of psychological states and capacities that may include, but are not confined to, state of knowledge (Longworth, 2009).” Rationalism states a priori knowledge, deduction and the concept of an active mind. According to rationalist, our minds have innate set of principles and skills. If we only use our logic in accordance with these principles is enough to obtain accurate information about all the objects that make up the universe.