What is the science? What are differences between science and pseudoscience? The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. Science attained through study or practice and can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Modern science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences, which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics.
Having introduced his own notion of ideas, and since Berkeley’s famous principle is esse is percipi which means “to be is to be perceived” the author now assumes that since ideas truly do exist, then there should be something that is able to perceive them. This is how our enlightenment philosopher argues for the existence of the mind. First, ideas were introduced and it was affirmed that we experience ideas directly, so ideas do actually exist. And for them to exist they should be received and contained somewhere: in our minds or spirit, which are two interchangeable terms in Berkeley’s
The concept of Positivism is directly associated with the idea of objectivism. In this kind of philosophical approach, scientists give their viewpoint to evaluate social world with the help of objectivity in place of subjectivity (Cooper and Schindler 2006). According to this paradigm, researchers are interested to collect general information and data from a large social sample instead of focusing details of research. According to this position, researcher’s own beliefs have no value to influence the research study. The positivism philosophical approach is mainly related with the observations and experiments to collect numeric data (Easter-by-Smith et al 2006).
The social world has to be verified in a purely empirical manner by understanding of empiricism and realist ontology. Both have a view that the world exists independently of researchers’ knowledge of it and that social phenomena have causal powers on which we can make causal statements. Both Marxist and positivist stress the need for a rigorous scientific method, for scientific analysis of the social phenomenon and natural world. However these two perspectives have some traits which make one unique from another and these are discussions as below, Marxist perspective is more subjective that is to say; describes a problem from the point of view of those experiencing the problem whereas positivist perspective is more objective that is to say; it is interpreted by the researcher about the problem. Marxist perspective focuses less on empirical study and abstains from a historical explanation of social phenomena but focuses on an epistemological position which is sceptical of the naive perceptions that which lead to a proper understanding of the social world without using theoretical framework whereas positivism focuses on ontological realism and objectivity in understanding the world with value free empirical
This view explores the relation and existence of the phenomenal world and the world of things-in-themselves. For the purpose of this paper I will explain this conceptual scheme in order to understand how it is that Kant reaches the conclusion that things-in-themselves are unknowable. From this I will offer a critique of Kant’s account of things-in-themselves and suggest that they are unknowable because the idea of such things is unintelligible. In order to understand Kant’s claiming of things-in-themselves being unknowable can be explored, it becomes crucial to first understand his conceptual scheme. Kant’s theory operates on the grounds that there is such a thing as the “phenomenal world”.
The faculty of philosophy of science highlights and debates various theories to which people are said to derive scientific knowledge. Some of these theories include empiricism and positivism, inductivism and many others. All of these outlooks have very different approaches to the topic of the derivation of scientific knowledge. For example, the empiricists and positivists alike believe that scientific knowledge is derived from the facts of experience, whereas Inductivists believe that it should be deduced from theories and claims that have been inductively inferred from observations. Clearly, both of these theories have their allure but at the same time neither is clear of problems.
THe major approaches in Psychology are discussed below. Behaviourist Approach Behaviourism was founded by John B Watson. It says that scientific psychology should study only observable behaviour. He told that psychologists shouldn’t study consciousness altogether and should focus exclusively on behaviours that could observed directly.Behaviour referred to any kind of observable response or activity by an organism. Behaviourism views organisms as controlled by by the environment in which it is present and specifically that we are the result of what we hve learned from our environment.
Why we study power, the question of subject Michel Foucault’s main goal is not to try to define the phenomenon of power or nor to elaborate the foundations of such types of analysis. His main objectives are to create a mode by which a human being made self as a subject in our culture. In this article, he has dealt with three modes of objectification, which a human being into the subject. the first is Mode of inquiry, which gives the status of science. Eg the objectivating of the productive subject, subjects who labors for economic and wealth analysis.
Science is the quest for truth. It unravels the mysteries of life, gives it a meaning and logic and helps us to understand it better through experimentations. Who was Gandhi then? He was a seeker of truth, and he lived an experimental life conducting experiments throughout his life and hence probably he named his autobiography as “My Experiments with Truth.” To explain this, Gandhi said: "...my experiments have not been conducted in the closet, but in the open; and I do not think that this fact detracts from their spiritual value. ...Far be it from me to claim any degree of perfection for these experiments.