in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science. He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.
Exit makeup Makeup, lipstick, pencil, makeup sometimes reserves surprises. The classic mistake rest of wash water stain. Water fixed the stain and it becomes difficult to take off. To make up for the damage, here are some tips: intelligent takeoff: sprinkle talcum stain or dirt Sommières possibly mixed with ammonia. Vacuum, enjoy the result; gentle remedies: water sound, not fat removers, breadcrumbs, hydrogen peroxide, baking soda; strong remedies: ammonia and turpentine.
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.
he believed that science has the power to encourage people to lead a more comfortable and productive life. He said that in order to achieve the more productive and comfortable life, people must free from the unpredictable ways of thinking that were prevalent at that time. In other words People must develop a sense of critical consciousness towards the phenomena. Thus Bacon promoted a RATIONAL APPROACH TO SCIENCE. He considered that the people must use logical and reasonable thinking because they have the capability to think in logical way.
The two had a problem with the beginning stages of Popper’s composition of scientific testing. Duhem introduces auxiliary assumptions that are necessary to make a hypothesis. He states that in order to make a hypothesis, there are many other assumptions needed to get to that thought. With these numerous other hypotheses that are support the main hypothesis, there is no way to prove that if the conclusion does not agree with the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong. The only conclusion Duhem says Popper’s testing can make is that one part of the tester’s way of thinking is incorrect.
Popper saw a big gap in philosophy and science and believed that the purpose of philosophy was to bring clarity to real world problems, it must seek to tell us something about our place in the universe. However unlike some other branch of physical science in which one knows what the problem is and one goes to work on solving it, Popper put it clear that philosophy has no problem situation, there is no ground work of accepted facts onto which a new question can be placed. Science could in other words no longer be about finding evidence to prove a theory. Real philosophers or scientists would work to prove themselves wrong, attempting to find the gap in an existing theory. Only then might knowledge be worthy of its name.
Whereas doubt involves in questioning some belief of a perceived ‘reality’ and may reject previous knowledge. This essay will focus on the extent to which more knowledge could cause doubt. The basic progress of Science is made possible through imagined hypothesis by scientists attempting to determine and establish the meaning of the unexplained. These hypotheses will then be tested or experimented upon through scientific procedures, and among the entire conclusion drawn the positive ones will be theories. Those theories that are held as “scientific knowledge” will remain until they are doubted, proven wrong and contested against; in the future challenged by new experiments and explorations.
We may well ask if the educational system is characterized by a convergent type of thinking, then how can the practice of normal research be a source of novel ideas and revolutions? Kuhn thought that no other sort of work than this tradition-bound one is so well suited to isolate and recognize anomalies that cause crises in science. In other words, normal research provides the background that enables scientists to identify crisis-provoking anomalies: "In the mature sciences the prelude to much discovery and to all novel theory is not ignorance, but the recognition that something has gone wrong with existing knowledge and beliefs." Therefore, the ultimate effect of normal research is invariably to change the
One of the biggest dis-advantages of it is of the case selection and confirmation bias. Researchers choose the cases which they want to study and one which is of their interest. And secondly, the confirmation bias even has a very damaging effect which occurs because when both dependent and independent variables change as the case hypotheses want them to and any contradicting theory is being discarded. Another major dis-advantage of case studies is that is does not represent a wider population and that it lacks representativeness. Case studies usually examine why some events occurred and what were the mechanisms through which thy occurred.
Cons • One problem with observation is that it can be very resource intensive. It might involve great amounts of time and energy, which can be a problem if those resources are not available in adequate quantity. If there is less time for the research to be carried out it might lead to hurried observation which dilutes the quality of the data collection process and thus has an adverse impact on the analysis • Since observation is being carried out by a human being, there exists a risk of observer bias. It is not necessary that the observer will always be unbiased and thus there will always be a question mark over the sanctity of the data collected. • Another problem with observation is the effect of the observer on the behavior of those being