Science
Science has always been seen as a quest for knowledge that quenches man’s thirst for the ultimate truth. This is actually a statement that really can’t just be stated but must be followed with a deep explanation as not everyone would agree with this saying. Even if the statement is agreed upon then the topic becomes has science actually progressed, stood still, or is it going around in circles. In my empiricist opinion there is a science that might not be perfectly objective, but never the less it is leading us down a royal road that ends at “the truth”. Now in the philosophical world there are two types of beliefs in the constructionists and the foundationalists. A constructionist, like an absolute skeptic, believes that there are no solid roots for science to use as foundations. This means that science can’t progress because it is not possible to have an end without a starting point. Then there is the foundationalist, like an empiricist, who believes that these roots do exist, that means there is such a thing as science that can progress. An objective science would be a way that mankind can learn more about itself and the world around it and objectively or without too much distortion by human bias or beliefs. Only t . . .
Why waste this talent that we were gifted with, even if it means making life more complicated and confusing at least we are satisfying this wanting to learn and grow. As long as you have the foundations there is no place to go but up or further along one of the branches. No one can say for sure that science is actually doing anything other then making life complicated and more difficult. (Kessler 322-327) I agree with Descartes that science could absolutely be put onto a secure basis, this would make it able to forward progression. hen can this progression or movement up the ladder to all-knowing be understood as long as you start from the foundation. Nothing was for certain but you can always use experience and get into a habit and use that as a basis. Haack talks about how dogmatism might start to dominate science, she does not like having the devout making judgments because she believes they will always come up with a conclusion they want to prove their belief. One of the great minds to agree with the foundationalists belief was French Philosopher Rene Descartes. Dreams and simple arithmetic fascinated Descartes; even in a dream the square root of four is two as well in the real world and everywhere else in the known universe. The higher you get though, the more branches you can follow in this science that keeps on progressing. The atheist or agnostic on the other hand not believing in a divine being would most likely refute creationism and talk about evolution. Once you start putting values with science Hack believes that it will just add to politics and science would wind up working for an agenda like Nazi Germany. It was much simpler times when humans were just hunters and gatherers, man had only the goals of procreating the species and staying alive. (Kessler 396-401) Thinking of this topic though might stir up some feelings in people about why be scientific at all. Most likely neither would change their opinion without extreme evidence showing them otherwise.
Common topics in this essay:
Rene Descartes, Germany Haack, , Structure Science, Hume Kessler, Helen Logino, Susan Haack, Epistemology Apparatchik, Hume Anderson, objective science, means science, Elizabeth Anderson, putting values, unbiased impartial fair, learn grow, progress objective, science means, simple arithmetic, secure basis, science progress, weed weaker theories, onto secure basis, progress objective science, science move, |
Acceptance Essays
