In this analogy found repeatedly in both the Second Critique and Groundwork Kant points to both moral law and scientific law. Moral law as a law of obligation prescribes how we ought to act and is both necessary and universally valid; it commands our behavior categorically. Scientific law, on other hand, explains phenomena and is also necessary and universally valid, at least with regard to the phenomena it
It is important to understand the binary that is seen between explanation and interpretation. Ricoeur suggests that explanation is something of the natural sciences; interpretation, however, is the main form of understanding – specific to human sciences (Ricoeur, 2018, p. 275). Ricoeur believes that the two are not quite a binary but indeed complementary to each other. Through this deconstruction, he shows that interpretation makes use of methodology to find a hidden meaning in a text. He sees interpretation, consequently, to be both a philosophical and scientific endeavor (Ricoeur, 2018, p.
Descartes and Hume. Rationalism and empiricism. Two of the most iconic philosophers who are both credited with polarizing theories, both claiming they knew the answer to the origin of knowledge and the way people comprehend knowledge. Yet, despite the many differences that conflict each other’s ideologies, they’re strikingly similar as well. In this essay I will attempt to find an understanding of both rationalism and empiricism, show the ideologies of both philosophers all whilst evaluating why one is more theory is potentially true than the other.
Natural sciences have particular criteria that must be met before something is taken into thought. There must be a logical technique and procedure of: observation, making a hypothesis and examinations. From that point a law or idea is made which aggregates into a theory. It must be controllable, quantifiable, and repeatable to be viewed as a substantial theory. Scientists don't fundamentally accept their speculations to be totally genuine, however it is, as they would see it the best natural clarification accessible.
Moreover the new science built its own new independent force of power or authority and challenged the old theory and practices. Enlightenment thinkers believed in the abilities, capabilities, and the intellectual power of human beings. And they believed that human beings have the systematic knowledge of the nature. Enlightenment was the period of the advancement of science as well as the tremendous
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.
The areas in which we are going to focus on in this essay are natural and human sciences. Natural science relies greatly on observation which creates biases, it creates doubt in our minds and human sciences even though rely on logic and reason sometimes due to restricted knowledge may create biases. The key operation in my essay is to find does increased knowledge of a certain topic increase doubt in one’s mind while limited knowledge allude our confidence? For my investigation, I will use these areas of knowledge stated above. The knowledge question is : To what extent does memory impair logical reasoning to make judgements in the fields of human sciences?
Incoherent convictions are necessary for moral development and in specific for evolving the type of rational and communicative moral convictions Brownlee favours. Public conscientious convictions require deep internal thought and deliberation in order for them to mature. Brownlee, in her dialogue fails to give way to the agent who is still weighing and deliberating to form moral convictions which is not known to others yet. Thus, these insightful discussions help us explore the nature of conscience and conscientious convictions and draw important conclusions concerning the justifiable protection of acts of civil disobedience. The discussions in this book give rise to new questions and challenges in the
Trustworthiness of a Qualitative Research Trustworthiness has turned into a vital idea in light of the fact that it permits specialists to portray the ethics of qualitative terms beyond the scope of quantitative research (Given & Saumure, 2008). The trustworthiness of qualitative research generally is often questioned by positivists, perhaps because their concepts of validity and reliability cannot be addressed in the same way in naturalistic work (Shenton, 2004). It is presented consisting of the four (4) components in the study: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. Credibility is an assessment of whether the examination discoveries represent a “credible” conceptual interpretation of the data drawn from the participants’
If the results did align with the hypothesis, only then will it be considered as a verified data. If it did not, another hypothesis will be formed then experimented. The cycle goes on until the hypothesis aligns with the results. Rationalism kicks in the first step of the scientific method all the way to the third which is the forming of a hypothesis. Empiricism might also start with observation but it is applied strongly during experiments because of the experience you get from