Nicholas Rescher: Agreeing With Present Day Science

For centuries, scientific development has been a hot issue among media. Especially since the invention of cloning technology, more and more arguments about the developing pattern and power gained from such a development worried people globally. No doubt that the rapid development did provide us numerous conveniences and improving our life greatly, though, in regard to the increasing acknowledgment that people have from our nature, and the unpredictable human nature, likewise Dr. Abnesti in the fiction story, Escape from Spiderhead. From my pass readings and experiences, I think that human need to take every step of scientific development extremely seriously. As see from now, people are arguing about

Science has helped improve many people’s lifestyle from eating a healthy diet to stopping different form of disease that are attacking the human body. Science also provides intolerable lifestyle to people such as the elders as when the elderly have an incurable disease and the elderly are suffering for this incurable disease and wants to die, but cannot due to science advancement in technology making impossible to die at that moment. The possible future of science is uncontrollable. The power of science provides possibility and with this possibility doesn’t always generate a good possibility. Jeremy Rifkin in "Biotech Century" and Michael Bishop in "Enemies of Promise" talks about the science as their argument in a casual sense of

In the first part of this article it explains how dogma has trumped science. Through the couse of this first section it explains the idea of the Bering Strait theory. This is a highly controversal theory that states that Paleoindians walked from Asia over an anciant land bridge about 15,000 years ago. To many people this theory is rock solid but to some it is an insult. There are some breaks in the theory, one being that there is a gap in time that is unaccounted for. Some say that they settled into the land bridge then once again moved, but this is not for certian. There was even a term coined for die-hard archaeologists who insist upon Clovis as representing the earliest culture of North America. They were called the "Clovis Police". The

When we do anything, it is influenced by our past and the people around us. If we walk across the street or play a game, we are consciously or subconsciously motivated and swayed by the lessons and suggestions from people around us to walk or play a certain way. This is the same case for reading or listening to scientific concepts and theories as we try to compare and test them against what we have learned before, even if neither of them are factual or heavily supported by others. For example, when my family and I were visiting an apartment, the landlord kept talking about the benefits and advantages of Vitamin C, referencing a novel he read as a child; however, once we left the complex, my father told us that this was not completely true,

There is nothing more profound about the topic of science and technology than its ability to be a partner in helping to save lives. It is so influencial in coming up with the latest drugs to combat harmful and even deadly diseases and viruses such as AIDS, and some cancers. We are where we are today because of the remarkable innovations in science and technology. The idea that lives can be saved from such innovations as a new flu vaccine, or a new type of antibiotic that can battle chicken pox, and many other diseases. Its all about the advancements that we get from science and technology that let us live the way we do. Now, we dont have to worry about dying from the chicken pox or

Scientists are always going to be looking for future advancements on what is known, in a quest to create or discover cures and solutions to existing problems in society.

The general definition of science is the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiments. On the contrary, it is much more than that. Much like art, it holds a sense of subjectivity. It is an abstract paradigm that requires the input of one’s personal beliefs and values to help it progress. It is much more than just facts and theories of how the world works, but also a prime representation of the ethics and beliefs of the scientists that help mold it today. Science is a database for factual knowledge on the natural world, furthermore, it also incorporates the environment it has created. The environment consists of the particular people, behaviors, and struggles of the scientific community. Even though science incorporates many thoughts and ideas, it does not contain other ideas. Science does not hold a moral category. It does not define what is considered right and what is considered wrong. It merely provides information on certain ideas for further understanding. Any theories and applications of it can lead to other subjects. This idea also applies to what the acquired scientific knowledge is used for. Even though the ideas of complexity and subjectivity are present in both science and art, the concept of aesthetic should only be important for art. Despite requiring organization and general cleanliness, science does not need to pass the eye test. Science should be represented through proper data and its analysis and the non factual features need to have a rational reasoning. To judge or base an idea on its appeal does not equal to

Joel Achenbach, the author of the article, “Why Do Reasonable People Doubt Science?” starts of by saying that in today's era the people often disagree with scientific reasoning. The world we live in today is so full of problems it's hard to tell what is real anymore. The decision is left to the individual to decide what to believe is true or false, and then how there going to put their beliefs into action. Achenbach later explains in his article that the scientific method pushes back all the opinions and unfolds the real truth.

In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.

It is important to allow for the coexistence of universals and particulars. Science depends on an appreciation for particulars, but it also strives for broad

Karl Popper is commonly regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th Century. He is well known for his rejection of the inductivist viewpoint of the scientific method, in which one uses observation to propose a law to generalize an observed pattern, and later confirm that law through more observation. Popper states that “induction cannot be logically justified” (Popper 14). Inductivism relies on the process of inductive reasoning which is a logical process in which multiple premises, all thought to be true and found to be true most of the time, are combined to obtain a conclusion and in many cases formulate a law or theory. Popper rejected the inductivist viewpoint in favor of a theory called empirical falsification which holds that a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified, and therefore it can and needs to be scrutinized through experimentation.

Within the last century scientific discovery has been growing at an exponential rate. Evolution, genetics, physics, and chemistry have all greatly affected the way people view the universe and human role in it. Furthermore, the application of scientific discoveries has physically changed society. For example, humans went from being flightless to eighty years later having transportation in super sonic jets available. Rapid scientific change has caused many issues surrounding morality and science to arise. The idea behind the skepticism is that just because something can be done doesnt mean it should be. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and cloning have all fallen under fire due to this concept. People worry that

The world of science, as we know it today, is a difficult subject to grasp. So many new ideas are present and these new ideas are not interchangeable. Some parts do work together although as a whole they don’t fully coincide with each other. The three basic ideas that science is now based upon come from Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. I call these ideas/theories “new” based on what I classify the state of the scientific community of today. After looking at what is going on in science, it is clear to me that the scientific world is in a crisis state. According to Kuhn, a crisis state is when science is in the middle of choosing a particular paradigm to work under. For scientists, there is a general theme

It is human nature to question our reality in an attempt to better understand our surroundings. Science, for me, is the devotion to better understand the world we live in, rooted in the natural and inevitable questions that all humans ask themselves. I believe that by answering the most fundamental questions, the potential technological advancements are much greater than that generated by applied engineering. Nowadays we can thank Einstein 's theory of relativity for

Science is an important part of our every day lives. We wake up each morning because we hear the ringing of our alarm clocks and turn on our faucets to wash our faces with warm water. We turn on the lights in our rooms to see our clothes and get dressed and we put our breakfast in the toaster and sip coffee from our mugs. All these things we do in the short time we are rushing to get ready for work or school, are due to the advancement of science and technology.