& Beeman M., 2015). Convergent Thinking Origin and definition of convergent thinking Guilford J.P (1956), who is considered the founder of modern creativity research, first coined the term convergent thinking in his well-known Structure-of-Intellect model. Convergent thinking is based on finding a single best solution to a problem whereas divergent thinking is "thinking outside the box", by generating multiple answers to a problem. Convergent thinking stresses on logic, speed and accuracy and the answers are either correct or incorrect. A critical aspect of convergent thinking is that it leads to a single best answer and therefore ambiguity is unacceptable.
He also proclaims that truth has posses a new significance. In the present day model, individuals discover the veracity of themselves by detecting it in its oneness to what power structures inform them it is. The idea of subjectivity according to Foucault is damaging because it compels us to formerly expound truths and conventions. The problem to any idea that represents identity is that it denounces an identity, in actual fact one believes one defeats suppression by declaring the truths, one really confirm the validity of power that have resolved this identity. (Rabinow
This statistic “penalize” the possibility for the quantity of the covariates in the theory allowing one validly to match models with dissimilar groups of covariates. Possible methodological limitations Any use of statistical approaches to data is susceptible to faults of one kind, or another. Investigators need to be careful and alert of potential difficulties of their data and investigative methods they use on those data (Bijwaard, G. E. (2014). The researchers should know that it is important to be sincere with their readers concerning any problem they doubt could interfere with their conclusions. It is noted that the most serious probable problem with the survival analysis regression technique is similar to that for any regression technique practical to observational records.
The fourth misconception about case-study says; it contains a slant toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. But, “the question of subjectivism and bias toward verification applies to all methods, not just to the case study and other qualitative methods. In addition to that, researchers who have conducted intensive, in-depth case studies typically report that their preconceived views, assumptions, concepts, and hypotheses were wrong and that the case material has compelled them to revise their hypotheses on essential points. Therefore, the case study contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification” (Flyvbjerg,
The differences between Goldman's Causal Theory of Knowledge and the Nyaya account of knowledge has no substantial difference as they relate to the Gettier problem and they fail to satisfactorily explain knowable events. After summarizing, the two positions there will be an explanation of how they are related along with examples and a rebuttal. After which a counter to the rebuttal with be given with an explanation of how that would fail to address the issue of giving a satifactory explanation of knowable events. Causal Theory of Knowledge Goldman lays out his arguments to prove that P knows x if x is, in the appropriate way, causally connected to P believing x. Goldaman argues that in Gettier's Ford/Barcelona disjunction Gettier neglects
who concludes that ‘rational nature cannot be valuable in a Kantian world’. Actually, there are Kantians working on issues whether rationality could identify moral law. According to Hill, aside from Korsgarrd’s objection to realism, there are mainly two doubts whether Kant implies value realism. The first doubt arises from epistemological concerns. Kant states that it is possible for all of us to possess moral knowledge; given that we construct value it is clearly plausible that we can know what is valuable.
Some authors interchange the two terms, others point to conceptual differences, even if they are blurred. However, 'Conflict' and 'dispute' are two distinct notions. Conflict, it is proposed, exists wherever there is incompatibility of interest, and therefore is pandemic. Conflict can be managed, possibly to the extent of preventing a dispute resulting from the conflict. Dispute is associated with distinct justifiable issues.
A fallacy is the use of poor, or invalid, reasoning for the construction of an argument. In other words, it is an argument that makes an error in logic or assumptions that should not have been made. In the formal setting, an argument is two sides presenting their sides argument using logic and deductive reasoning. In the book “Writing Arguments,” authors John Ramage, John Bean, and June Johnson compare several fallacies. The authors describe the straw man fallacy as an argument when a writer constructs a misinterpreted version of an argument that distorts its original meaning and intentions in order to criticizes it as if it were the real argument (401).
If the argument is sound, we must necessarily accept the conclusion that we do not know that we have hands. We ordinarily take having hands to be something we know. This argument, if sound, thus pushes us into skepticism. Nevertheless, this essay will show how our intuitions and an examination of the argument suggest that the argument is in fact sound, in spite of its skeptical implications. Thereafter, an objection from Dretske will be considered.
Constructivism is one of the aspects of interptretivism. Pragmatists utilize subjectivity and objectivity as two different positions on a continuum (Christie & Alkin, 2013). They are also of the view that inductive and deductive reasoning should be used in concert. Post positivists have the objective of “measuring truth” (Christie & Alkin, 2013). They do so despite the fact that the same objective may not be attained because all observations are imperfect and