The Philosophy Of Science And Philosophy

SCIENTIFIC PROCESS- the scientific process is a way to make sure that your experiment can give a good answer to your question. We use observations, hypotheses, predictions, experimentation, and conclusions.

In the 19th century, Europe’s materials were beginning to run low. They first noticed the the opportunities for free labor in the form of slaves (until the slave trade was abolished in 1807), and then the huge number of resources that Africa had. After those discoveries, Europeans wanted to try and colonize, or takeover Africa. For a long time, Europeans were kept out of Africa due to their strong armies, unknown rivers, and different diseases. However, at a certain point Europeans were able to finally break down the barriers when they had taken enough able-bodied men from Africa, invented new technologies such as a steamboat, and found cures to different diseases that had heavily hurt Europeans in the past.

* We use scientific theories to understand events beyond what our imaginations can often handle, ie; Newton’s theories on attraction of masses.

Certain philosophers would have you believe that science at best is an integrated, and reconstituted distillation of all the current knowledge at any one time (much like Campbell's condensed Tomato soup: boring and uninteresting). A diminutive subset of these natural thinkers has even dared to characterize our universe as one with an infinite number of happenings outside the current domain of knowledge.

The Scientific Method is the standardized procedure that scientists are supposed to follow when conducting experiments, in order to try to construct a reliable, consistent, and non-arbitrary representation of our surroundings. To follow the Scientific Method is to stick very tightly to a order of experimentation. First, the scientist must observe the phenomenon of interest. Next, the scientist must propose a hypothesis, or idea in which the experiments will be based around. Then, through repeated experimentation, the hypothesis can either be proven false or become a theory. If the hypothesis is proven to be false, the scientist must reformulate his or her ideas and come up with another hypothesis, and the experimentation begins again. This

The inductivist account of science recognizes five steps which are essential to scientific progress. First, scientists compile a large body of facts from observation and experiment. Using the principle of induction, these facts can be generalized to form the basis for a theory or law. Then, once a theory has been developed, scientists can use the theory as part of a valid logical argument to make new predictions or explanations of phenomena. According to Chalmers, the inductivist account has “a certain appeal” to it, namely, that all of scientific progress can be seen as the result of five fundamental leaps of thought (54). “Its attraction lies in the fact that it does seem to capture in a formal way

Camus, different from the many philosophers we have read so far, at first seems to hold a defeatist attitude with regard to the search for meaning in life. Instead of trying to identify a systematic way in which we can characterize meaningfulness such as narrative values or the Fitting Fulfillment theory, Camus argues that we ought to overcome our fundamental “craving” for meaning. He believes that “we must live within the indifference of the universe, or better within the constant confrontation of our need for meaning with the universe’s steadfast silence” (May ix). Fundamentally, Camus is addressing the meaning of life, while Wolf and Todd May are trying to identify the meaning within life. While Camus and Wold may be talking past each other due to this disparity, Camus can still contribute to our quest for happiness.

In the 17th century Francis Bacon introduced induction as the new method for producing scientific theories. However inductive reasoning is riddled with problems that make it unsatisfactory for demarcating science. Hume’s problem of induction

Why do young bright minds of India want to take up science or research as a promising career path in the first place? Doesn’t it feel like a risk? What career opportunities does one have after getting a PhD? These questions are bugging me quite a lot these days. For most of us, born and brought up in middle class urban society are taught right from the start to work hard and be well educated enough to secure a good job. Seemingly it is the gateway to lead a comfortable life. I think in India it is the most important thing in life. Getting a decent job. It’s the only thing that matters. No matter how creative you are and harbor any kind of alternate ambitions otherwise it becomes secondary after a point. So growing up, the thought of pursuing science and research could only be such a far-fetched dream for many of us I guess.

Although it is irrefutable that both Aristotle and Isaac Newton are great scientists and have made phenomenal contributions to scientific development, their scientific methods vary to a large extent. With reference to Scientific Method in Practice, Aristotle investigated the world by using inductions from observations to infer general principles and deductions from those principles to conduct further observational research (Gauch, 2003), while in Isaac Newton's Scientific Method, the author describes Newton’s method as aiming to turn theoretical questions into ones which can be explained by mathematical ideas and measurement from phenomena, and to establish that propositions inferred from phenomena are provisionally guides to further research

What is Science? When it comes to the word ‘science’ most of the people have some kind of knowledge about science or when they think of it there is some kind of image related to it, a theory, scientific words or scientific research (Beyond Conservation, n.d.). Many different sorts of ideas float into an individual’s mind. Every individual has a different perception about science and how he/she perceives it. It illustrates that each person can identify science in some form. It indicates that the ‘science’ plays a vital role in our everyday lives (Lederman & Tobin, 2002). It seems that everyone can identify science but cannot differentiate it correctly from pseudo-science and non-science (Park, 1986). This essay will address the difference between science, non-science and pseudo-science. Then it will discuss possible responses to the question that what should we do when there is a clash between scientific explanation and non-scientific explanation. Then it will present a brief examination about the correct non-scientific explanation.

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

In the natural sciences, theories may not be proven experimentally correct; however, it can be falsified through experimental evidence. Aristotle’s idea of spontaneous generation, organisms descending from inanimate matter, was falsified by Pasteur. As Pasteur’s falsification was drawn from the cell theory, this shows how scientific theories are

p a r a d i g m a n d t h e i n d u c t ive a

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a legal sentence for the convicted to be put to death for their criminal behavior. How the convicted criminal is executed varies from state to state. I do not believe that the death penalty is justifiable in almost any instance, if any. Throughout this class, I have read and experienced confusion on my opinion of whether capital punishment can be justifiable. If there was an absolute 100% belief and proof of guilt for the most serious of crimes (murder. rape, etc.), I would agree with the punishment of death. However, this is not the case most of the time. Research indicates that roughly 4% of the people on death row were wrongfully convicted, and at least one in twenty-five people on death row in the United States would be exonerated if given enough time.