The document discusses scientific attitudes and whether they are truly inherent among scientists. It begins by outlining common scientific attitudes like objectivity and open-mindedness. However, several studies cast doubt on the universality of these attitudes. Scientists have been found to be passionate, irrational, and committed to their own theories. Personal biases inevitably influence scientific work. Additionally, industrial and political pressures have diluted adherence to traditional scientific norms. The depiction of scientists in textbooks as perfectly rational is an oversimplification that fails to portray the human aspects of science.
The atomic bomb was invented by the Manhattan Project, a massive scientific research program led by the United States during World War II. The project involved over 130,000 people and was headed up by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. However, the work of physicist Leo Szilard was also instrumental in getting the project started earlier. Szilard had the initial idea that a nuclear chain reaction could be used for a bomb and pushed hard to get funding, partnering with Albert Einstein to convince the US government to fund nuclear weapons research. This ultimately led to the creation of the Manhattan Project and the invention of the atomic bomb years earlier than may have otherwise occurred.
This document provides an overview of a course on the philosophy of science. It discusses the interaction between philosophy and science, key concepts in the philosophy of science like scientific realism and falsificationism, and views of the scientific method from thinkers like Popper, Duhem and Kuhn. The course will examine general questions about science as well as specific issues in cosmology and cognitive sciences.
The document discusses the history and definition of science. It defines science as the systematic study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. The major branches of science are the natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. The importance of science is discussed in relation to nature, human life, research, and development. Key aspects of the nature of science are also outlined such as its tentative and theory-laden nature. The document concludes by discussing the general aims of science teaching such as developing inquiry skills and understanding science's role in technology and society.
This document discusses the debate around whether archaeology can be considered a true science. It summarizes perspectives from both sides of the debate. Those who argue archaeology is not a science point to issues like the inability to repeat excavations and inherent biases in interpretation. Supporters argue that archaeology uses the scientific method and can generate testable theories. The author believes the arguments against archaeology as a science are more well-supported due to stronger theoretical foundations. However, the author also thinks employing scientific strategies is important for developing archaeology further.
There is no_such_thing_as_a_social_science_introElsa von Licy
This document provides an introduction and overview of the arguments made in the book "There is No Such Thing as Social Science". It begins by stating the provocative title and questioning whether the authors will take it back or qualify their position.
It then outlines three ways the term "social science" could be used - referring to a scientific spirit of inquiry, a shared scientific method, or reducibility to natural sciences. The authors argue against the latter two, methodological and substantive reductionism.
The introduction discusses how opponents may accuse the authors of being a priori or anti-reductionist, but argues that those defending social science are actually being dogmatic by insisting it must follow a scientific model. It frames the debate as being
Evolutionary epistemology versus faith and justified true belief: Does scien...William Hall
This presentation explores the basis for scientific rationality by testing our claims about the world against nature as described by Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology versus accepting claims based on justified true belief. The presentation is particularly concerned to show the philosophical problems with religious fundamentalism.
The document discusses the multi-level nature of science. It describes how science works at different scales, from individual scientists tackling specific problems to broad overarching theories that frame entire disciplines. Hypotheses aim to explain narrow phenomena, while theories provide broad explanations supported by evidence. Some theories, like evolution or plate tectonics, are so important that they establish frameworks for understanding the natural world. Even accepted theories may change over time with new evidence. The document uses examples like the discovery of ozone depletion by CFCs to illustrate how science is an iterative process dependent on evidence and the scientific community.
The document discusses the differences between the human sciences and natural sciences from both a traditional empiricist view and opposing position. From a traditional empiricist view, both use the same basic methodology and must be confirmed or verified through evidence. However, the opposing position argues that human and natural sciences are essentially different and must use different methods, as human sciences study meaningful phenomena that are different from merely physical phenomena studied in natural sciences.
The atomic bomb was invented by the Manhattan Project, a massive scientific research program led by the United States during World War II. The project involved over 130,000 people and was headed up by physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. However, the work of physicist Leo Szilard was also instrumental in getting the project started earlier. Szilard had the initial idea that a nuclear chain reaction could be used for a bomb and pushed hard to get funding, partnering with Albert Einstein to convince the US government to fund nuclear weapons research. This ultimately led to the creation of the Manhattan Project and the invention of the atomic bomb years earlier than may have otherwise occurred.
This document provides an overview of a course on the philosophy of science. It discusses the interaction between philosophy and science, key concepts in the philosophy of science like scientific realism and falsificationism, and views of the scientific method from thinkers like Popper, Duhem and Kuhn. The course will examine general questions about science as well as specific issues in cosmology and cognitive sciences.
The document discusses the history and definition of science. It defines science as the systematic study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. The major branches of science are the natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. The importance of science is discussed in relation to nature, human life, research, and development. Key aspects of the nature of science are also outlined such as its tentative and theory-laden nature. The document concludes by discussing the general aims of science teaching such as developing inquiry skills and understanding science's role in technology and society.
This document discusses the debate around whether archaeology can be considered a true science. It summarizes perspectives from both sides of the debate. Those who argue archaeology is not a science point to issues like the inability to repeat excavations and inherent biases in interpretation. Supporters argue that archaeology uses the scientific method and can generate testable theories. The author believes the arguments against archaeology as a science are more well-supported due to stronger theoretical foundations. However, the author also thinks employing scientific strategies is important for developing archaeology further.
There is no_such_thing_as_a_social_science_introElsa von Licy
This document provides an introduction and overview of the arguments made in the book "There is No Such Thing as Social Science". It begins by stating the provocative title and questioning whether the authors will take it back or qualify their position.
It then outlines three ways the term "social science" could be used - referring to a scientific spirit of inquiry, a shared scientific method, or reducibility to natural sciences. The authors argue against the latter two, methodological and substantive reductionism.
The introduction discusses how opponents may accuse the authors of being a priori or anti-reductionist, but argues that those defending social science are actually being dogmatic by insisting it must follow a scientific model. It frames the debate as being
Evolutionary epistemology versus faith and justified true belief: Does scien...William Hall
This presentation explores the basis for scientific rationality by testing our claims about the world against nature as described by Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology versus accepting claims based on justified true belief. The presentation is particularly concerned to show the philosophical problems with religious fundamentalism.
The document discusses the multi-level nature of science. It describes how science works at different scales, from individual scientists tackling specific problems to broad overarching theories that frame entire disciplines. Hypotheses aim to explain narrow phenomena, while theories provide broad explanations supported by evidence. Some theories, like evolution or plate tectonics, are so important that they establish frameworks for understanding the natural world. Even accepted theories may change over time with new evidence. The document uses examples like the discovery of ozone depletion by CFCs to illustrate how science is an iterative process dependent on evidence and the scientific community.
The document discusses the differences between the human sciences and natural sciences from both a traditional empiricist view and opposing position. From a traditional empiricist view, both use the same basic methodology and must be confirmed or verified through evidence. However, the opposing position argues that human and natural sciences are essentially different and must use different methods, as human sciences study meaningful phenomena that are different from merely physical phenomena studied in natural sciences.
This document discusses the philosophy of science. It defines the differences between knowledge, common sense, and science. It also compares the characteristics of common sense and science. Some key aspects covered include the purpose, methods, and language used in common sense versus science. The document also discusses various views on the philosophy of science, including characteristics, terminology, the scientific method, classifications of science, and different historical views on science.
The structure of scientific revolutions (anuj)Anuj Bhatia
This document summarizes chapters 5-9 of Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It discusses several key aspects of Kuhn's work, including: normal science and puzzle-solving; the priority of paradigms over rules in science; anomalies leading to crisis and potential paradigm shifts; responses to crisis like considering alternatives; and the nature of scientific revolutions as non-cumulative changes involving incompatible new paradigms.
This document provides an overview of philosophy of science. It discusses science as a body of knowledge obtained through observation and methods. Philosophers of science are concerned with determining the nature of the world, right ways of thinking, determining right from wrong, the best form of government, beauty, and knowledge. The document examines functional assumptions in philosophy of science, whether certain questions are scientific or philosophical, and critiques of philosophy of science as being normative or descriptive. It also discusses theories, scientific communities, social constructionism, Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and scientific revolutions, and Karl Popper's views on falsification in science.
Scientific knowledge is uncertain yet robust, changing over time through testing and revision of theories in light of new evidence. The key characteristics that differentiate science from other ways of knowing are its self-correcting nature through questioning current understandings and significantly examining views. While scientific concepts may be flexible and subject to change, the scientific process has reliably advanced areas like medicine, technology, and our understanding of the natural world.
Life, Knowledge and Natural Selection ― How life (scientifically) designs its...William Hall
The document discusses major revolutions in how life stores and processes knowledge over time, from the emergence of the first living systems to modern technological advances. It outlines three key revolutions:
1) The emergence of genetic memory in DNA and RNA around 4 billion years ago, allowing life to store knowledge across generations.
2) The development of multicellular memory and neural networks in brains between 2-1.5 billion years ago, greatly increasing an organism's processing power.
3) The rise of cultural memory and knowledge sharing through language, writing, and communication starting around 5,000 years ago, enabling societies to collectively store and build upon knowledge over generations.
The document summarizes the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science progresses through paradigms and paradigm shifts, rather than through a uniform progression. Paul Feyerabend believed there is no rational scientific progress even within paradigms, and that creativity and social factors are more important. Imre Lakatos sought to balance rational scientific progress with Kuhn's ideas by proposing research programs that allow for development over time.
The document discusses the importance of including philosophy in science and math curriculums. It argues that whenever science is taught, the teacher's own philosophical views are conveyed, and separating science education from philosophy results in a distorted view of science. Throughout history, science has been intertwined with philosophy. Making the philosophical elements more explicit can help students better understand the subjects and appreciate the broader cultural and epistemological aspects of science.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It is typically organized through universities, colleges, or research institutes and is subdivided into natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. While historically more linked to philosophy, science increasingly sought to formulate knowledge through laws of nature over centuries. Modern science aims for principles like objectivity and reproducibility, though these principles are more stringently applied in some fields than others. The history of science dates back to ancient civilizations, though modern science is distinct in its successful approach defined as science today.
This document discusses key aspects of science including its methods, assumptions, and types of reasoning. It notes that science involves systematic, documented investigation of natural phenomena through observation and experimentation. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are used in science to develop theories from data or deduce expectations. The scientific method includes observing, generalizing, reasoning, and reevaluating findings. Methodology, or the approach used, is also discussed in relation to political science. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are outlined.
POL SOC 360 Science Society Social Researchatrantham
This document discusses key concepts in the philosophy of science. It defines science as a systematic method of investigating natural processes through empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Some key aspects covered include the use of induction and deduction, falsifiability, Thomas Kuhn's ideas of normal and revolutionary science, and different research methodologies in social sciences like qualitative and quantitative analysis. The document also addresses common errors and biases that can occur in the scientific process.
Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method 1993 and the ...ijtsrd
The epistemological problem associated with Karl Paul Feyerabend as a philosopher of Science resides beneath the fact that different critics of his works give divers interpretations of them. His works and the accounts they present have no common structure. This plurality and conflictual interpretations of him makes it difficult, if not impossible to pin him to a particular tradition in the Philosophy of Science. For this reason, while some of his critics consider him to be a relativist, to some, he is a Dadaist, a confusionist and an anarchist, yet others think of Feyerabend as the worst enemy of Science. This diversity of interpretation of Feyerabend, in my opinion, only goes to reassure us of our reading of him. That is, Feyerabend is closely associated with pluralism than anything else. My aim, in this paper is thus propose a thesis and attempt a justification. The thesis is that my reading of Against Method, 1993 and The Tyranny of Science, 2011 , justifies the thesis above. This perspective, unlike the others, is more holistic and inclusive. Without agreeing with his poists about science and its method, I contend that his pluralist claims in the philosophy of science art not hard to find. My examples stem, first, from the diversity of interpretations, and the conflicting views of his critics. Second, I consider the titles of the two works under consideration, to illustrate his criticism of the scientism and Methodism of Modern Science on the one hand, and his defence of plurality of methods and theories. Finally, I conclude that contrarily to critics who label him the worst enemy of science, anarchist or a confusionist, I think that, Feyerabend exaggerated his criticism of Modern Science and his defence of pluralism when he claimed to see no difference between science, myths and religion. However, I go further to contend that this comparison does not eclipse his pluralist position. It rather exaggerates it. That is why I term him, an extreme pluralist to say the least. Nyuykongi John Paul ""Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method (1993) and the Tyranny of Science (2011)"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-2 , February 2020,
URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30060.pdf
Paper Url : https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/education/30060/feyerabend-pluralism-and-progress-in-science-in-against-method-1993-and-the-tyranny-of-science-2011/nyuykongi-john-paul
This document discusses the concept of anti-science and identifies several factors that contribute to anti-science views. It notes that anti-science is not new and comes in waves, often arising from resistance to change, ignorance of science, religious views, and politicization of science issues. Specific concerns cited include stem cell research, cloning, environmentalism, and global climate change. The document argues that anti-science spreads through rhetoric and media and calls for more science education and scientists speaking out to counter anti-science errors and misinformation.
The History Of Science In Science Education: Inquiring about InquiryJerrid Kruse
This powerpoint was used at a National Science Teacher Association meeting. The history of science can be used to help students understand more deeply how science works, or the nature of science. The presentation also discusses aspects of the nature of science and inquiry teaching. The presentation also notes the vital role of the teacher more "pulling it all off".
lecture 29 from a college level introduction to psychology course taught Fall 2011 by Brian J. Piper, Ph.D. (psy391@gmail.com) at Willamette University, includes parapsychology, Freudian psychology
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
Thomas Kuhn & Paradigms (By Kris Haamer)Kris Haamer
Thomas Kuhn was a physicist and philosopher known for his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which introduced the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. A paradigm is a universally accepted scientific theory that provides models and solutions for a community of scientists. According to Kuhn, normal science operates within an existing paradigm until anomalies emerge that cannot be explained, creating a crisis and leading to a new paradigm that better explains the facts. This process of paradigm shifts advances scientific understanding as new theories provide more accurate ways of viewing reality.
This document discusses how scientists gain knowledge and the epistemological approaches of scientific inquiry. It contrasts scientific ways of knowing with other approaches. Some key points made include:
- Scientific inquiry uses processes like induction, deduction, observation, experimentation, and testing of hypotheses and theories.
- Scientists know things by providing justification and evidence to support their claims, rather than just having faith. They must be able to explain how they know something.
- Knowledge is considered a justified true belief, meaning a belief that is actually true and for which the believer can provide evidence or justification.
- Different fields like history, sociology and theology have their own ways of knowing that are distinct from science. Scientists rely on
This document provides an introduction to the author's paper on objectivity in science. It begins by outlining the debate around whether objectivity exists in science. The author then defines key terms like objectivity and science. The main body discusses the problem of underdetermination, which questions objectivity by showing that multiple hypotheses can be consistent with the evidence. The author argues this problem strikes a "death blow" to the idea of objective science. They intend to later argue that using perspectives and context, an intellectual consensus can be reached that approaches objectivity, though true objectivity cannot be achieved.
The document discusses natural sciences, which deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations. It provides examples of scientific discoveries that were made by accident, through emotion-driven research, intuition, and imagination. The development of sciences is not linear but involves revising facts and concepts over time. One achievement of 20th century physics was proving the aim of giving an exact picture of the material world to be unattainable. The document asks whether people place the same faith in science as religion and provides dictionary definitions of science and religion.
This document provides an overview of qualitative research, outlining some of its key features and philosophical underpinnings. It discusses how qualitative research focuses on understanding people's experiences and interpretations of the world. The document then contrasts qualitative research with quantitative research, noting that qualitative research rejects the positivist model used in natural sciences. It explores some of the philosophical debates around different research paradigms, such as objectivism and interpretivism. Finally, it discusses Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and how some researchers believe this helped spur a paradigm shift towards qualitative research in the social sciences.
Science is a sphere of human activity in which objective knowledge about reality is developed and systematized theoretically. The main functions of science are explanatory and predictive functions. Science is a complex multifaceted integral phenomenon, and the process of development of scientific knowledge is not a unidirectional process, but a nonlinear one, characterized by multidirection. This is a process in which new growth points, diverse opportunities and situations of choice arise.
Science studies not only the surrounding reality, but also itself as a part of this reality. There is a whole complex of disciplines studying science, which includes the history and logic of science, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, it is the philosophy of science that studies science as an integral phenomenon, exploring the general laws of scientific and cognitive activity, the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, its levels and forms, its socio-cultural determination, means and methods of scientific cognition, ways of its justification and mechanisms of knowledge development.
The philosophy of science began to take shape in the middle of the twentieth century. As a scientific discipline, the philosophy of science differs from the direction in Western and domestic philosophy, which bears the same name and originated a century earlier.
This document discusses the philosophy of science. It defines the differences between knowledge, common sense, and science. It also compares the characteristics of common sense and science. Some key aspects covered include the purpose, methods, and language used in common sense versus science. The document also discusses various views on the philosophy of science, including characteristics, terminology, the scientific method, classifications of science, and different historical views on science.
The structure of scientific revolutions (anuj)Anuj Bhatia
This document summarizes chapters 5-9 of Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". It discusses several key aspects of Kuhn's work, including: normal science and puzzle-solving; the priority of paradigms over rules in science; anomalies leading to crisis and potential paradigm shifts; responses to crisis like considering alternatives; and the nature of scientific revolutions as non-cumulative changes involving incompatible new paradigms.
This document provides an overview of philosophy of science. It discusses science as a body of knowledge obtained through observation and methods. Philosophers of science are concerned with determining the nature of the world, right ways of thinking, determining right from wrong, the best form of government, beauty, and knowledge. The document examines functional assumptions in philosophy of science, whether certain questions are scientific or philosophical, and critiques of philosophy of science as being normative or descriptive. It also discusses theories, scientific communities, social constructionism, Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and scientific revolutions, and Karl Popper's views on falsification in science.
Scientific knowledge is uncertain yet robust, changing over time through testing and revision of theories in light of new evidence. The key characteristics that differentiate science from other ways of knowing are its self-correcting nature through questioning current understandings and significantly examining views. While scientific concepts may be flexible and subject to change, the scientific process has reliably advanced areas like medicine, technology, and our understanding of the natural world.
Life, Knowledge and Natural Selection ― How life (scientifically) designs its...William Hall
The document discusses major revolutions in how life stores and processes knowledge over time, from the emergence of the first living systems to modern technological advances. It outlines three key revolutions:
1) The emergence of genetic memory in DNA and RNA around 4 billion years ago, allowing life to store knowledge across generations.
2) The development of multicellular memory and neural networks in brains between 2-1.5 billion years ago, greatly increasing an organism's processing power.
3) The rise of cultural memory and knowledge sharing through language, writing, and communication starting around 5,000 years ago, enabling societies to collectively store and build upon knowledge over generations.
The document summarizes the perspectives of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos on the philosophy of science. Thomas Kuhn argued that science progresses through paradigms and paradigm shifts, rather than through a uniform progression. Paul Feyerabend believed there is no rational scientific progress even within paradigms, and that creativity and social factors are more important. Imre Lakatos sought to balance rational scientific progress with Kuhn's ideas by proposing research programs that allow for development over time.
The document discusses the importance of including philosophy in science and math curriculums. It argues that whenever science is taught, the teacher's own philosophical views are conveyed, and separating science education from philosophy results in a distorted view of science. Throughout history, science has been intertwined with philosophy. Making the philosophical elements more explicit can help students better understand the subjects and appreciate the broader cultural and epistemological aspects of science.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge through testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It is typically organized through universities, colleges, or research institutes and is subdivided into natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. While historically more linked to philosophy, science increasingly sought to formulate knowledge through laws of nature over centuries. Modern science aims for principles like objectivity and reproducibility, though these principles are more stringently applied in some fields than others. The history of science dates back to ancient civilizations, though modern science is distinct in its successful approach defined as science today.
This document discusses key aspects of science including its methods, assumptions, and types of reasoning. It notes that science involves systematic, documented investigation of natural phenomena through observation and experimentation. Both deductive and inductive reasoning are used in science to develop theories from data or deduce expectations. The scientific method includes observing, generalizing, reasoning, and reevaluating findings. Methodology, or the approach used, is also discussed in relation to political science. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are outlined.
POL SOC 360 Science Society Social Researchatrantham
This document discusses key concepts in the philosophy of science. It defines science as a systematic method of investigating natural processes through empirical evidence and logical reasoning. Some key aspects covered include the use of induction and deduction, falsifiability, Thomas Kuhn's ideas of normal and revolutionary science, and different research methodologies in social sciences like qualitative and quantitative analysis. The document also addresses common errors and biases that can occur in the scientific process.
Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method 1993 and the ...ijtsrd
The epistemological problem associated with Karl Paul Feyerabend as a philosopher of Science resides beneath the fact that different critics of his works give divers interpretations of them. His works and the accounts they present have no common structure. This plurality and conflictual interpretations of him makes it difficult, if not impossible to pin him to a particular tradition in the Philosophy of Science. For this reason, while some of his critics consider him to be a relativist, to some, he is a Dadaist, a confusionist and an anarchist, yet others think of Feyerabend as the worst enemy of Science. This diversity of interpretation of Feyerabend, in my opinion, only goes to reassure us of our reading of him. That is, Feyerabend is closely associated with pluralism than anything else. My aim, in this paper is thus propose a thesis and attempt a justification. The thesis is that my reading of Against Method, 1993 and The Tyranny of Science, 2011 , justifies the thesis above. This perspective, unlike the others, is more holistic and inclusive. Without agreeing with his poists about science and its method, I contend that his pluralist claims in the philosophy of science art not hard to find. My examples stem, first, from the diversity of interpretations, and the conflicting views of his critics. Second, I consider the titles of the two works under consideration, to illustrate his criticism of the scientism and Methodism of Modern Science on the one hand, and his defence of plurality of methods and theories. Finally, I conclude that contrarily to critics who label him the worst enemy of science, anarchist or a confusionist, I think that, Feyerabend exaggerated his criticism of Modern Science and his defence of pluralism when he claimed to see no difference between science, myths and religion. However, I go further to contend that this comparison does not eclipse his pluralist position. It rather exaggerates it. That is why I term him, an extreme pluralist to say the least. Nyuykongi John Paul ""Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method (1993) and the Tyranny of Science (2011)"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-4 | Issue-2 , February 2020,
URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30060.pdf
Paper Url : https://www.ijtsrd.com/humanities-and-the-arts/education/30060/feyerabend-pluralism-and-progress-in-science-in-against-method-1993-and-the-tyranny-of-science-2011/nyuykongi-john-paul
This document discusses the concept of anti-science and identifies several factors that contribute to anti-science views. It notes that anti-science is not new and comes in waves, often arising from resistance to change, ignorance of science, religious views, and politicization of science issues. Specific concerns cited include stem cell research, cloning, environmentalism, and global climate change. The document argues that anti-science spreads through rhetoric and media and calls for more science education and scientists speaking out to counter anti-science errors and misinformation.
The History Of Science In Science Education: Inquiring about InquiryJerrid Kruse
This powerpoint was used at a National Science Teacher Association meeting. The history of science can be used to help students understand more deeply how science works, or the nature of science. The presentation also discusses aspects of the nature of science and inquiry teaching. The presentation also notes the vital role of the teacher more "pulling it all off".
lecture 29 from a college level introduction to psychology course taught Fall 2011 by Brian J. Piper, Ph.D. (psy391@gmail.com) at Willamette University, includes parapsychology, Freudian psychology
Science v Pseudoscience: What’s the Difference? - Kevin KorbAdam Ford
Science has a certain common core, especially a reliance on empirical methods of assessing hypotheses. Pseudosciences have little in common but their negation: they are not science.
They reject meaningful empirical assessment in some way or another. Popper proposed a clear demarcation criterion for Science v Rubbish: Falsifiability. However, his criterion has not stood the test of time. There are no definitive arguments against any pseudoscience, any more than against extreme skepticism in general, but there are clear indicators of phoniness.
Post: http://www.scifuture.org/science-vs-pseudoscience
Thomas Kuhn & Paradigms (By Kris Haamer)Kris Haamer
Thomas Kuhn was a physicist and philosopher known for his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" which introduced the concepts of paradigms and paradigm shifts. A paradigm is a universally accepted scientific theory that provides models and solutions for a community of scientists. According to Kuhn, normal science operates within an existing paradigm until anomalies emerge that cannot be explained, creating a crisis and leading to a new paradigm that better explains the facts. This process of paradigm shifts advances scientific understanding as new theories provide more accurate ways of viewing reality.
This document discusses how scientists gain knowledge and the epistemological approaches of scientific inquiry. It contrasts scientific ways of knowing with other approaches. Some key points made include:
- Scientific inquiry uses processes like induction, deduction, observation, experimentation, and testing of hypotheses and theories.
- Scientists know things by providing justification and evidence to support their claims, rather than just having faith. They must be able to explain how they know something.
- Knowledge is considered a justified true belief, meaning a belief that is actually true and for which the believer can provide evidence or justification.
- Different fields like history, sociology and theology have their own ways of knowing that are distinct from science. Scientists rely on
This document provides an introduction to the author's paper on objectivity in science. It begins by outlining the debate around whether objectivity exists in science. The author then defines key terms like objectivity and science. The main body discusses the problem of underdetermination, which questions objectivity by showing that multiple hypotheses can be consistent with the evidence. The author argues this problem strikes a "death blow" to the idea of objective science. They intend to later argue that using perspectives and context, an intellectual consensus can be reached that approaches objectivity, though true objectivity cannot be achieved.
The document discusses natural sciences, which deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations. It provides examples of scientific discoveries that were made by accident, through emotion-driven research, intuition, and imagination. The development of sciences is not linear but involves revising facts and concepts over time. One achievement of 20th century physics was proving the aim of giving an exact picture of the material world to be unattainable. The document asks whether people place the same faith in science as religion and provides dictionary definitions of science and religion.
This document provides an overview of qualitative research, outlining some of its key features and philosophical underpinnings. It discusses how qualitative research focuses on understanding people's experiences and interpretations of the world. The document then contrasts qualitative research with quantitative research, noting that qualitative research rejects the positivist model used in natural sciences. It explores some of the philosophical debates around different research paradigms, such as objectivism and interpretivism. Finally, it discusses Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms and how some researchers believe this helped spur a paradigm shift towards qualitative research in the social sciences.
Science is a sphere of human activity in which objective knowledge about reality is developed and systematized theoretically. The main functions of science are explanatory and predictive functions. Science is a complex multifaceted integral phenomenon, and the process of development of scientific knowledge is not a unidirectional process, but a nonlinear one, characterized by multidirection. This is a process in which new growth points, diverse opportunities and situations of choice arise.
Science studies not only the surrounding reality, but also itself as a part of this reality. There is a whole complex of disciplines studying science, which includes the history and logic of science, psychology of scientific creativity, sociology of knowledge, etc. However, it is the philosophy of science that studies science as an integral phenomenon, exploring the general laws of scientific and cognitive activity, the structure and dynamics of scientific knowledge, its levels and forms, its socio-cultural determination, means and methods of scientific cognition, ways of its justification and mechanisms of knowledge development.
The philosophy of science began to take shape in the middle of the twentieth century. As a scientific discipline, the philosophy of science differs from the direction in Western and domestic philosophy, which bears the same name and originated a century earlier.
This document discusses pragmatism and scientific freedom. It argues that pragmatism is a flexible approach that allows researchers to use what works best for their particular study. Pragmatism advocates using theories and approaches if they prove useful, without worrying about philosophical concepts like objective reality. Adopting pragmatism could help fight against rigid scientific structures and allow for more independent, free science. The document also discusses how science has been dominated by institutions and biased by money and politics. It argues that science should be free from such influences and restrictions on knowledge production and sharing.
This document discusses the field of ethnomethodology. It argues that ethnomethodology studies the methods that people use in their everyday lives to make their actions and social situations observable and accountable. It focuses on how people produce and manage everyday social settings through practical procedures for describing and accounting for those same settings. A key idea is that accounting practices are "reflexive" in that they are part of the same ordinary activities they describe. The document also discusses how descriptions of social life can be "loose" and incomplete, as the full implications and conditions referenced may be vast and difficult to fully articulate.
Covering Scientific Research #SciCommLSUPaige Jarreau
The document discusses the process of scientific research and communication. It defines science and the scientific method, which involves forming hypotheses, making predictions, and testing predictions through experiments or other means. The document outlines the positivist approach to science, where knowledge comes from empirical evidence and the senses. It also discusses scientific theories, the differences between basic and applied science, and challenges common myths about science. The final sections cover scientific publishing, how to read scientific papers, and best practices for communicating scientific research to broader audiences.
The document discusses Thomas Kuhn's work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" and his key concepts of paradigms, normal science, and scientific revolutions. Kuhn argued that science progresses through periods of normal science within a dominant paradigm, punctuated by scientific revolutions that result in a new paradigm taking hold. His work challenged the traditional view of science as a linear, cumulative process.
Sujay the Sociology of Science FINAL FINAL FINAL - Copy (2).pdfSujay Rao Mandavilli
This document discusses the sociology of science and its potential to promote social change through better communication of science. It defines science as a systematic process of investigation using observation, experimentation and theory building. The sociology of science can help developing countries by analyzing differences between their scientific development and that of developed countries. For sociology of science to achieve this potential, it must become a distinct interdisciplinary field that incorporates diverse cultural perspectives.
This document summarizes a study that analyzed the social networks of scientists working in the field of agricultural innovation. The study used social network analysis techniques to examine:
- The communication and collaboration ties between scientists in the field to understand if an "invisible college" existed.
- How productive scientists were more central in the network than others based on measures like degree and density.
- How the field grew over time, with most new entrants in the late 1950s and early 1960s, including many students of the most productive scientists.
- How scientists could be grouped into distinct collaborative subgroups within the overall network based on their coauthorships and student-advisor relationships.
Sociology aims to study society using scientific methods like those used in natural sciences. However, whether sociology can truly be considered a science is debated. Society consists of humans and human behavior/ideas, which are more difficult to study objectively and empirically compared to natural phenomena. Positivism approaches sociology as an objective, empirical science, while interpretivism argues human behavior has meaningful context beyond just observation and measurement. Ultimately, what constitutes valid knowledge and scientific truth depends on one's philosophical views about reality and the nature of human behavior.
Sujay Certainty Uncertainty principle FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL (2).pdfSujay Rao Mandavilli
This paper proposes a "certainty-uncertainty principle" for evaluating hypotheses in the social sciences. It discusses theories of uncertainty from physics, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but notes its approach is different. The principle has two main postulates: 1) Researchers should consciously search for uncertainties in hypotheses, similar to searching for exceptions. 2) Certainties must be evaluated against uncertainties in hypotheses, with the net effect considered. This approach should be used along with the prior "sociological ninety-ten rule" about finding exceptions over space and time. The goal is to improve social science research quality and lead to better hypothesis formulation.
Sujay Certainty Uncertainty principle FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL.pdfSujay Rao Mandavilli
This document discusses guidelines for formulating hypotheses in the social sciences that consider both certainty and uncertainty. It proposes weighing certainty and uncertainty when evaluating hypotheses to make science more objective and multi-polar. The document reviews theories of uncertainty from physics and mathematics and discusses how concepts like fuzzy logic, paradoxes, and cross-cultural research can be applied to social sciences. The goal is to make scientific research more inclusive of diverse contexts and needs of societies to better serve social progress.
History, Philosophy & Theory in Visualization: Everything you know is wrongLiz Dorland
A poster for the Gordon Research Conference on Visualization in Science and Education 2007, commenting on the complexity of dealing with different perspectives on learning from visualizations.
The document discusses several key aspects of the nature of science:
1. Science aims to understand the natural world through careful methodology like observing, measuring, and experimenting. Scientific knowledge is also shaped by human creativity and logic.
2. Scientific theories are substantiated explanations that are continually tested against evidence. Laws summarize relationships demonstrated by evidence.
3. While scientific knowledge is durable, it is also subject to change as new evidence emerges. Scientists try to avoid bias and ensure validity through practices like peer review.
4. Science is influenced by social and political factors as research requires funding and support that can change over time and between cultures. The history of stem cell research is one example.
Sujay Horizontal collaboration in science FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL FINAL (3).pdfSujay Rao Mandavilli
This document discusses the benefits of horizontal collaboration in social science research between developing nations. It defines horizontal collaboration as collaboration among peers or developing nations, as opposed to vertical collaboration which involves unequal partners. The key benefits outlined are that it allows for the development of scientific paradigms applicable to different local contexts, fosters a spirit of mutual learning and inquiry, follows inductive approaches by considering diverse case studies, better theorization by aggregating global data, and gives voice to underrepresented groups. It argues this approach can challenge established norms and structures.
Scopus is a bibliographic database that covers a wide range of academic disciplines. It was developed by Elsevier, a prominent academic publishing company, and was first launched in 2004. Scopus is designed to provide researchers with access to a vast repository of scholarly literature, including journal articles, conference papers, patents, and more. Unlike some other databases, Scopus places a strong emphasis on citation analysis, making it an invaluable tool for assessing the impact and influence of research publications.
This document summarizes a presentation on research ethics and scientific publication. It discusses author responsibilities including submitting original work and obtaining proper permissions. It defines plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other ethical violations. It provides examples of plagiarized papers that were retracted from journals. It discusses how journals detect problems, handle ethical violations, and work to uphold integrity. It emphasizes sharing knowledge through peer-reviewed publication and the importance of ethical conduct in research.
Development of Social Sciences in Dissertations of Immanuel Wallerstein - Imp...RemigiuszRosicki
This paper presents an analysis of the social science development concept of Immanuel Wallerstein. In general terms we can say that the development of social sciences was based on a process of emancipation of individual subjects of research and validation of research methods.
I. Wallerstein drew attention to the process of emancipation of individual disciplines, therefore
we can talk about the separation of philosophy, followed by social sciences and, negatively evaluated by I. Wallerstein, applied social sciences. With the constitution of individual disciplines
we dealt with the process of polarising methodological positions, which can be roughly described as the concept of two cultures. The text describes the following issues: (1) the directions
of emancipation of scientific disciplines, (2) the processes of emancipation of scientific disciplines, (3) the dynamics of changes in social sciences, (4) the effects of changes occurring in sciences. In addition to the main assumptions of I. Wallerstein on science, the text attempts to confront these assumptions with the achievements of T. S. Kuhn, R. K. Merton and C. W. Mills. The aim of the article is to point out the implications for the “theory of international relations” deriving from the general trends in the development of social sciences. This issue has come down to only selected issues of: microscopisation, idealisation, metaphorical use, deformation, transcendentalisation, fictionalisation and fetishisation of notions in the “theory of international relations”.
This document discusses guidelines for formulating hypotheses in the social sciences based on the concepts of certainty and uncertainty. It proposes a "Certainty-uncertainty principle" that evaluates hypotheses by weighing certainties against uncertainties. The paper discusses existing theories on uncertainty from physics, like the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. It also discusses Gödel's incompleteness theorem in mathematics and Tarski's undefinability theorem. The paper aims to make identifying and evaluating uncertainties as important as certainties in hypotheses. This approach hopes to make social science research more objective, reliable and applicable across diverse cultural contexts by incorporating varied perspectives from around the world.
This document discusses the relationship between science and philosophy. It provides definitions of science as the study of natural phenomena through observation and experimentation with the goal of discovering general truths and laws. Philosophy is defined as the study of knowledge, reality, and ethics through reflection rather than empirical discovery. The philosophy of science examines the methods and justification of scientific claims.
The relationship between science and philosophy is examined in three ways: they can deal with different subject matters, philosophy can be an extension of science by evaluating scientific concepts and theories, or philosophy can describe realities independent of science. While science studies empirical facts, philosophy clarifies scientific language and theories. Both fields influence each other as science is not purely objective and philosophy reflects on scientific findings.
ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, and GDPR: Best Practices for Implementation and...PECB
Denis is a dynamic and results-driven Chief Information Officer (CIO) with a distinguished career spanning information systems analysis and technical project management. With a proven track record of spearheading the design and delivery of cutting-edge Information Management solutions, he has consistently elevated business operations, streamlined reporting functions, and maximized process efficiency.
Certified as an ISO/IEC 27001: Information Security Management Systems (ISMS) Lead Implementer, Data Protection Officer, and Cyber Risks Analyst, Denis brings a heightened focus on data security, privacy, and cyber resilience to every endeavor.
His expertise extends across a diverse spectrum of reporting, database, and web development applications, underpinned by an exceptional grasp of data storage and virtualization technologies. His proficiency in application testing, database administration, and data cleansing ensures seamless execution of complex projects.
What sets Denis apart is his comprehensive understanding of Business and Systems Analysis technologies, honed through involvement in all phases of the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC). From meticulous requirements gathering to precise analysis, innovative design, rigorous development, thorough testing, and successful implementation, he has consistently delivered exceptional results.
Throughout his career, he has taken on multifaceted roles, from leading technical project management teams to owning solutions that drive operational excellence. His conscientious and proactive approach is unwavering, whether he is working independently or collaboratively within a team. His ability to connect with colleagues on a personal level underscores his commitment to fostering a harmonious and productive workplace environment.
Date: May 29, 2024
Tags: Information Security, ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 42001, Artificial Intelligence, GDPR
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find out more about ISO training and certification services
Training: ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management System - EN | PECB
ISO/IEC 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management System - EN | PECB
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - Training Courses - EN | PECB
Webinars: https://pecb.com/webinars
Article: https://pecb.com/article
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information about PECB:
Website: https://pecb.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pecb/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PECBInternational/
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/PECBCERTIFICATION
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
हिंदी वर्णमाला पीपीटी, hindi alphabet PPT presentation, hindi varnamala PPT, Hindi Varnamala pdf, हिंदी स्वर, हिंदी व्यंजन, sikhiye hindi varnmala, dr. mulla adam ali, hindi language and literature, hindi alphabet with drawing, hindi alphabet pdf, hindi varnamala for childrens, hindi language, hindi varnamala practice for kids, https://www.drmullaadamali.com
How to Fix the Import Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
An import error occurs when a program fails to import a module or library, disrupting its execution. In languages like Python, this issue arises when the specified module cannot be found or accessed, hindering the program's functionality. Resolving import errors is crucial for maintaining smooth software operation and uninterrupted development processes.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
Main Java[All of the Base Concepts}.docxadhitya5119
This is part 1 of my Java Learning Journey. This Contains Custom methods, classes, constructors, packages, multithreading , try- catch block, finally block and more.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 InventoryCeline George
In this slide, we'll explore how to set up warehouses and locations in Odoo 17 Inventory. This will help us manage our stock effectively, track inventory levels, and streamline warehouse operations.
How to Setup Warehouse & Location in Odoo 17 Inventory
Document
1. SCIENCE EDUCATION AND SCIENTIFIC ATTITUDES
Pravin Singh
Introduction
Science has several dimensions. Traditionally, the overwhelming emphasis in
the science curriculum has been on the content dimension. Consequently
students obtained a narrow understanding of the scientific culture. The
situation has improved somewhat in the recent years as a result of the
development of modern science programmes. Greater attention is given to the
nature of scientific enquiry through the promotion of active student
participation in activity-oriented learning experiences.
In addition to the knowledge and process dimensions of science some
recognition has been given to scientific attitudes and to developing these
attitudes in students. It is generally maintained and accepted unquestionably
that scientists uphold a set of common scientific attitudes. It is also pointed
out that students by practising science in the manner of scientists will
consequently adopt and internalize these attitudes.
The trend in current science programme is to develop attitudes considered to
be "scientific" and therefore valuable. Gauld (1973:25) lists such things as the
tendency to be objective, open-minded, unbiassed, sceptical and curious and
the possession of a critical, questioning and rational mind. Many modern
science curricula such as the local Basic Science, the New Zealand Science :
Infants to Standard Four and the Physical Science, to name a few, have
recognized the need to develop scientific attitudes.
What are scientific attitudes?
Scientific attitudes can be regarded as a complex of "values and norms which
is held to be binding on the man of science. The norms are expressed in the
forms of prescriptions, proscriptions, preferences and permissions. They are
legitimatized in terms of institutional values" (Barnes and Dolby, 1970:3). The
norms and values are supposed to be internalised by the scientist and
thereafter they fashion his/her scientific practice.
The current set of scientific attitudes of objectivity, open-mindedness,
unbiassedness, curiosity, suspended judgement, critical mindedness, and
rationality has evolved from a systematic identification of scientific norms and
values. The earliest papers of any importance in the field of scientific attitudes
41
2. are those of R.K. Merton (1957). He conceptualized the norms or institutional
imperatives on the basis of evidence taken mainly from statements by scien-
tists about science and their scientific activity. He then identified four norms.
These are universalism, communality, disinterestedness and organized skep-
ticism.
Universalism requires that information presented to the scientific community
be assessed independently of the character of the scientist who presents the
information. The norm of communality requires that scientific knowledge be
held in common, in other words, the researcher is expected to share his
findings with other scientists freely and without favour. The norm of
disinterestedness requires scientists to pursue scientific knowledge without
considering their career or their reputation. Scientists are exhorted by the
norm of organized skepticism never to take results on trust. They are
expected to be consistently critical of knowledge.
To this list of institutional imperatives Barber (1962: 122-142) later added two
more — rationality and emotional neutrality. Rationality relates essentially to
having faith in reason and depending on empirical tests rather than on
tradition when substantiating hypotheses. Scientists are encouraged also to
conform to the norm of emotional neutrality i.e. to avoid emotional
involvement which may colour their judgement.
These idealistic institutional imperatives or their resulting variants have been
adopted by school science. It is argued (Ben-David, 1975:21) that abiding by
the Mertonian norms helps in checking emotions and prejudices from marring
one's research work. Science is also seen to be socially neutral (King, 1971)
and consequently much of the endeavour of the scientific community is
protected from social criticism. Price (1963) remarks that the scientific
community believes that the success of science and technology can to a large
extent be attributed to the adherence to the Mertonian norms. Moreover, the
general public attributes much of the success of science to the belief that the
scientific community must be open, neutral, self-critical, rational, etc.
But is it an unquestionable fact that scientific attitudes have been important in
the success of the scientific community? Can one accept without exception
that open-mindedness, disinterestedness, objectivity etc. are actually inherent
or acquired qualities prevalent amongst the members of any scientific
community? Is it not possible that these scientific attitudes have been
popularised and then reified as a set of ideal attitudes but in reality is not often
found in actual scientific practices? The following studies raise serious doubts
about the scientists' adherence to institutional imperatives.
42
3. Price (1963) reveals that science is now controlled, financed and directed by
the state and by industry. Ellis (1969) points out that governmental and
industrial support has grown so much that traditional norms are no longer
applicable. Science is now "Big Science" and scientists must conform to a
new set of rules dictated to a large degree by state policies and industrial
priorities. Under such a situation, secrecy and competition take on a more
dominant role. External pressures of industrial demands in terms of costs and
benefits and other political and economic implications contribute towards a
shift in the scientific comunity's attitudes towards their work (see Rose and
Rose, 1971). So bureaucratization and industrialisation of science are external
factors that have somewhat diluted the scientist's adherence to Mertonian
norms.
The study of the personal characteristics of scientists has also raised questions
about whether the flourishing of science can be entirely attributed to the
scientists' unequivocal acceptance of the traditional norms. Holton and Roller
(1958) have found that the actual human characteristics exhibited by scientists
are quite distant from the attitudes ascribed to scientists.
Anne Roe (1961) reports that personal factors inevitably enter into scientific
activity. They influence a scientist's choice of what observations to make;
they influence a scientist's selective perception when making the
observations. They also influence their judgements about when there is
sufficient evidence to be conclusive and considerations as to whether
discrepancies between experimental and theoretical data are important or
unimportant to their pet theories.
Mitroff 's study (1974) of the behaviours of Apollo moon scientists shows that
scientists are passionate, irrational and strongly committed to their own
favoured theories. What this means is that subjective characteristics of the
scientists act as norms rather than the widely accepted Mertonian norms.
Mitroff (1974) also noted that scientists are seldom objective; there is no such
thing as the disinterested observer. As Mitroff sees it, the real process of doing
science is much more complicated. It is filled with subjective and even irra-
tional elements that have been generally unacknowledged. Mitroff concludes
by suggesting that "to remove commitment and even bias may be to remove
one of the strongest sustaining force for both the discovery of scientific ideas
and for their subsequent testing." (Mitroff, 1973: 765).
Quite often school science implies or depicts scientists as being rational and
critical in their scientific activities. This, however, may not always be the case.
Gauld (1973) admits that rationality does play a part in scientific activity but is
not always evident and not always practised by all the members of a
43
4. scientific community. Kirkut (1960) suggested that rational thinking is certainly
exercised in judging the products of these with whom one disagrees although
the same case may not be lavished on the arguments of scientists whose
views are closer to one's own. Writings by Kuhn (1962) also provide an insight
into factors and personal characteristics that influence a scientist's activity.
The degree of resistance, stubbornnessjealousy and rigid commitment
witnessed among the members of the scientific community further
undermines the total acceptance of scientific attitudes. Bernard Barber's
(1961) study provides ample evidence of this. For example, he cites Max
Planck who had recorded the following complaints concerning the practice of
the members of his scientific community.
"I found no interest, let alone approval, even among the very
physicists who were very closely connected with the topic.
Helmholtz probably did not read my paper at all. Kirchhoff
expressly disapproved ... I did not succeed in reaching Clausius ... I
carried on a correspondence with Carl Neumann, of Liepzig, but it
remained totally fruitless" (as cited by Barber, 1961, Page 596).
Barber (1961) presents several examples that reveal the extent of scientists'
stubbornness and resistance to refutation of established scientific ideas and to
the presentation of counter-arguments and new concepts. Such
investigations weaken the argument that scientists are generally openminded,
objective, skeptical, disinterested, rational and neutral.
Effect on Students
Science textbooks, in their rush to present organised descriptions of structure,
function and process, sacrifice human drama and personal characteristics of
the members of the scientific community. Much of the textbooks'
interpretation of the images of scientists and their attitudes is a consequence
of the analysis and acceptance of the end-products of science. This approach
has resulted in the acceptance of a stereotyped image of the scientist.
Ahlgren and Walberg (1973) and Randall (1979) in separate studies, have
pointed out that students perceive scientists as cold, impersonal data-dealers,
and their work as dull, monotonous and tedious. Bereft of common human
feelings and compassion, the robot-type images — a consequence of the
projection into the common scientific attitudes — has resulted in the promo-
tion of a negative attitude forwards science and a gradual loss of interest in
science (see Shallis and Hills, 1975).
The quality of objectivity in science seems firmly upheld by scientists and non-
scientists alike. Consequently, according to Shallis and Hills (1975), those that
44
5. are attracted to science subscribe to the notion of objectivity, thereby
perpetuating the myth. It is of concern to the general public to realise that
many of those attracted to science will be adhering to this norm of objectivity.
In doing so, there is always the possiblity that future scientists would become
more cold, objective and almost robot-like. However, at a time when the
impact of science and technology on the society is so critical, there is a need
for the scientific community to be more human and compassionate.
Science, because it appears so cold, loses its appeal for the general public.
This is unfortunate especially when the general public needs to be more alert
towards scientific activities. As for South Pacific students, the study of
science in most cases is seen as a convenient means of acquiring a pass in
public examinations. It is doubtful whether the majority of the school leavers
continue to maintain interest in science. Indeed, it is increasingly unlikely that
they are keen enough to develop their scientific knowledge after completing
their formal education.
Conclusion
While it is desirable that students of science should be encouraged to develop
these attitudes we need also make them aware of the role that personal
characteristics play in the acquisition of scientific knowledge. By revealing the
role of personal characteristcs that scientists are normal human beings,
fallible, stubborn, emotional and irrational, we can humanise science and
thereby develop in the student proper appreciation of science.
To do this the student should be given the opportunity to perceive scientists as
normal, actively and occasionally fallible human beings, who are different only
in the area of their special training. Students should have access to literature
that reveals the extent to which the subjective side of the scientist influences
his or her work.
Needless to say, classroom teachers must play the major role in this
enterprise, and thus help students acquire a better understanding of science
and scientists. To be effective, teachers may need to familiarise themselves
with current writings dealing with the nature of scientific knowledge and the
practice of scientists at work.
REFERENCES
Ahlgren. A & Changing attitudes towards science among
Walberg, H.J. adolescents. Nature, Sept. 28 1973, 245, 187-190.
Barber, B. Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.
48
6. Science 1961, 134, 596-602.
Barber, B. Science and social order. New York: Collier Books,
1962
Barnes, S.B. & The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint.
Dolby, R.G.A. European Journal of Sociology, 1970, II, 3-25.
Ben-David, J. On the traditional morality of science.
Newsletter 13 The Harvard Program on Public Con-
ceptions of Science, 1975, pp.24-36.
Ellis, N.D. The occupation of science. Technology & Society,
July 1969, 5(1), 33-41.
Gauld, C.F. Science, Scientists and "scientific attitudes"
The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 1973, 19,
25-32.
Holton, G. & Foundations of Modern Physical Science
Roller, D. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley, 1958, Chapters 13, 14
& 15
Kerkut, G.A. Implications of Evolution New York : Pergamon, 1960
King, M.D. Reason, tradition and the progressiveness of science.
History and Theory, 1971, 10, 3-32.
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.
Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure
Glencoe, l11: Free Press, 1957, Chapter 16.
Mitroff, I.I. "The disinterested scientist", Fact or fiction?
Science Education, 1973, 37, 761-765.
Mitroff, I.I. The Subjective Side of Science: A Philosophical In-
quiry into the Psychology of the Apollo Moon Scien-
tists Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1974.
Price, D.J. Little Science, Big Science New York: Columbia
University Press, 1963.
Randall, A.F. Scientific writing beyond the textbook. The Science
Teacher, May 1979, 46(5), 18-21.
Roe, A. The psychology of the Scientist. Science, August
1961, 134, 456-459.
Roe, S & The myth of the neutrality of science
Rose, H Impact of Science on Society 1971, XXI (2), 137-149.
Shallis, M & Young people's image of the scientist
Hills, P. Impact of Science on Society October-December
1975, 25(4), 275-278.
46