ABSTRACT: The aim of my project is to understand how religious, scientific and political
reasons shaped and inspired the theory of ‘Origin of life and universe’ in a progressive way
and to look it from a philosopher’s point of view. I also want to explore the aspect on what makes a radical idea like Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was different from the existing paradigm to be accepted amongst the scientific community.
"HUMAN BIOLOGY - Darwin or Design?" - An Intelligent Investigationgodknt777
In today's rapidly advancing scientific culture, what is answer to the ultimate question of where we come from? Where does the scientific evidence point to?
Is it more reasonable to believe in Darwinism (that all life arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals and has progressively mutated and evolved into highly complex biological structures today) or in Design (that biological life bears the hallmarks of intelligence: specificity, improbability, and information)?
Examine the scientific evidence and decide for yourself...
"HUMAN BIOLOGY - Darwin or Design?" - An Intelligent Investigationgodknt777
In today's rapidly advancing scientific culture, what is answer to the ultimate question of where we come from? Where does the scientific evidence point to?
Is it more reasonable to believe in Darwinism (that all life arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals and has progressively mutated and evolved into highly complex biological structures today) or in Design (that biological life bears the hallmarks of intelligence: specificity, improbability, and information)?
Examine the scientific evidence and decide for yourself...
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
Some notes for the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. We will actually come back to this and cover the Enlightenment separately at a later time. For now, just concentrate on everything up to and including Newton.
Philosophy, Science, Arts, Technology: World Knowledge Grand UnificationAzamat Abdoullaev
Creating the Future
Reality
Worlds
Philosophy
Science
Arts
Technology
Unification
Global Research and Innovation Space
Superscience
Internet of Everything
Intelligent Internet
Smart WWW
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
Some notes for the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. We will actually come back to this and cover the Enlightenment separately at a later time. For now, just concentrate on everything up to and including Newton.
Philosophy, Science, Arts, Technology: World Knowledge Grand UnificationAzamat Abdoullaev
Creating the Future
Reality
Worlds
Philosophy
Science
Arts
Technology
Unification
Global Research and Innovation Space
Superscience
Internet of Everything
Intelligent Internet
Smart WWW
On the Destiny of the Species: What Would Darwin Think 150 Years After 'The ...martine
Presentation about the morphing from genes to bemes as the next step in the quest for survivable self-replication codes, delivered at World Transhumanist Association meeting in Chicago
Evolution of Science Essay
Reflection Paper On Science And Science
Sample Forensic Science Personal Statement
Essay about Life Science
Geography as a Science Essay examples
Ethics in Science Essay
Human Science And Natural Science
The Impacts of Science on Human Life Essay
My Love For Science
Science and Literature Essay
Forensic Science Essay example
Value of Science Essay
My Passion For Science
Environmental Science Essay
Environmental Science Essay
Why I Want to Study Computer Science
Essay about The Importance of a Science Education
Science Honor Society Essay
Science Essay
Essay on Forensic Science
The Book of Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile.
What Should be the Christian View of Anime?Joe Muraguri
We will learn what Anime is and see what a Christian should consider before watching anime movies? We will also learn a little bit of Shintoism religion and hentai (the craze of internet pornography today).
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way.pptxCelso Napoleon
Lesson 9 - Resisting Temptation Along the Way
SBs – Sunday Bible School
Adult Bible Lessons 2nd quarter 2024 CPAD
MAGAZINE: THE CAREER THAT IS PROPOSED TO US: The Path of Salvation, Holiness and Perseverance to Reach Heaven
Commentator: Pastor Osiel Gomes
Presentation: Missionary Celso Napoleon
Renewed in Grace
In Jude 17-23 Jude shifts from piling up examples of false teachers from the Old Testament to a series of practical exhortations that flow from apostolic instruction. He preserves for us what may well have been part of the apostolic catechism for the first generation of Christ-followers. In these instructions Jude exhorts the believer to deal with 3 different groups of people: scoffers who are "devoid of the Spirit", believers who have come under the influence of scoffers and believers who are so entrenched in false teaching that they need rescue and pose some real spiritual risk for the rescuer. In all of this Jude emphasizes Jesus' call to rescue straying sheep, leaving the 99 safely behind and pursuing the 1.
The Chakra System in our body - A Portal to Interdimensional Consciousness.pptxBharat Technology
each chakra is studied in greater detail, several steps have been included to
strengthen your personal intention to open each chakra more fully. These are designed
to draw forth the highest benefit for your spiritual growth.
Homily: The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity Sunday 2024.docxJames Knipper
Countless volumes have been written trying to explain the mystery of three persons in one true God, leaving us to resort to metaphors such as the three-leaf clover to try to comprehend the Divinity. Many of us grew up with the quintessential pyramidal Trinity structure of God at the top and Son and Spirit in opposite corners. But what if we looked at this ‘mystery’ from a different perspective? What if we shifted our language of God as a being towards the concept of God as love? What if we focused more on the relationship within the Trinity versus the persons of the Trinity? What if stopped looking at God as a noun…and instead considered God as a verb? Check it out…
The Good News, newsletter for June 2024 is hereNoHo FUMC
Our monthly newsletter is available to read online. We hope you will join us each Sunday in person for our worship service. Make sure to subscribe and follow us on YouTube and social media.
The PBHP DYC ~ Reflections on The Dhamma (English).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma Reflections for the PBHP DYC for the years 1993 – 2012. To motivate and inspire DYC members to keep on practicing the Dhamma and to do the meritorious deed of Dhammaduta work.
The texts are in English.
For the Video with audio narration, comments and texts in English, please check out the Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF2g_43NEa0
Philosophy of science paper_A Melodrama of Politics, Science and Religion
1. 11/22/2011
PHILOSOPHY
A MELODRAMA OF POLITICS, SCIENCE AND
OF SCIENCE
PROJECT
RELIGION
Mahesh Jakhotia YIF11M_25
Project under the supervision of Prof. Dhruv Raina as a part of
‘Philosophy of Science’ course | Young India Fellowship
2. A MELODRAMA OF POLITICS, SCIENCE AND RELIGION
ABSTRACT: The aim of my project is to understand how religious, scientific and political
reasons shaped and inspired the theory of ‘Origin of life and universe’ in a progressive way
and to look it from a philosopher’s point of view. I also want to explore the aspect on what
makes a radical idea like Darwin’s evolutionary theory which was different from the existing
paradigm to be accepted amongst the scientific community.
1) POLITICAL CHANGES WHICH INFLUENCED THE DEBATE
1.1) Scopes trial: In 1920s a young teacher Jon Thomas Scopes was prosecuted for
teaching Darwinism in classrooms. The then presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan
was the person who prosecuted Scopes and this caught the attention of the world. The federal
government declared Scopes as guilty and fined him $100. This influenced the book
publishers to remove the Evolution theory from their curriculum to avoid any legal setbacks.
1.2) Russian arm superiority: In 1950s things started to change their base because of the
superiority of Russians in rocketry and arms world. Americans realized that its education was
not training the young minds and this made them to change their curriculum. Thus evolution
started appearing in the subjects once again and the support of evolution started.
1.3) Story of Huxley: Reach bred clergymen could only become scientists:
In the Oxford Evolution Debate in 1860, there were two main characters – Bishop
Wilberforce, a clergy man and a scientist. He himself delivered a scientific paper on the day
before the debate. Second character was Huxley who came from a low income family, but
also was a scientific researcher. Bishop Wilberforce never thought that science and theology
would have to part Company.
By far the most remarkable feature of the Oxford debate—as compared with the myth that
later grew around it—is that all the main protagonists left the Oxford Museum well satisfied
with their performances and convinced that they had personally carried the day
Why is there a division of religion and science? For this you need to know the story of
Huxley. Huxley came from a low income family, and at that time accepting money for
scientific research was considered undignified according to the church clergymen. And most
Philosophy of Science project 1
3. of the well-bred people of science had their own personal wealth or derived it from other
sources.
Hence he thought the division of Religion from state would make things better. The resultant
exodus of amateurs from the higher ranks of scientific debate would permit Huxley’s coterie
of scientific careerists to assume the reins of power.
2) SCIENTIFIC REASONS
2.1) Development of Geology: Though philosophers like Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucretius,
Strabo, and Seneca believed in the theory that the phenomena of evolution they observe is
because of natural and not supernatural causes. However it remained as facts as they could
not substantiate their claims. When geology started developing fossil study was made
possible, hence the facts about evolution could not be substantiated.
Modern geology began in the 18th cent. When field studies by the French mineralogist J. E.
Guettard and others proved more fruitful than speculation. The German geologist Abraham
Gottlob Werner, in spite of the many errors of his specific doctrines and the diversion of
much of his energy into a fruitless controversy (in which he maintained that the origin of all
rocks was aqueous), performed a great service for the science by demonstrating the
chronological succession of rocks.[1]
3) RELIGIOUS REASONS
3.1) The paradox of time: In Christianity it was believed that earth was born approximately
6000 years ago. This totally contradicts with almost all the scientific theories – Darwin
theory, and The Big Bang Theory in which the universe was born 13.7 billion years ago.
Hence the Day-age creationism was re-explained by the creationist community, in which the
duration of day was changed to millions of years to satisfy the scientific statements. Their
premise was that sun was born on the 4th day of the creation, hence it is not possible to say
that duration was for 24 hours, instead it must have been for very large durations of time,
which totally supports the big bang theory.
3.2) Intelligent Design: Intelligent design merged as a progression theory of the creationists.
The IDs explain that the world is irreducibly complex composed of a single system of several
well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of
any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly
Philosophy of Science project 2
4. complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial
function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive
modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system
that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.[2]
Even big bang theory explains that the Universe was once a small point which was extremely
hot and in dense state which eventually expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the
young Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. But how did
the hot and dense state comes into place initially? This is one of the most important questions
posed by creationists.
3.3) Similarity with the Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideologies: The debate between the
creationist and evolutionist can be considered as similar to Plato’s and Aristotle’s. Plato
believed that supernatural cause is the reason behind our creation. Everything already existed
in the supernatural world. Whereas Aristotle attributed the phenomena they observed to
natural and not supernatural causes.
4) KARL POPPER’S VIEW ON DARWINISM
Philosopher of science Karl R. Popper set out the concept of falsifiability as a way to
distinguish science and pseudoscience: Testable theories are scientific, but those that are
untestable are not. However, inUnended Quest, Popper declared "I have come to the
conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but
a metaphysical research programme, a possible framework for testable scientific theories.”
Only a few years later, Popper wrote, "I have in the past described the theory as "almost
tautological"… I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research
programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of
the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation".
His conclusion, later in the article is "The theory of natural selection may be so formulated
that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not
strictly universally true."[3]
Philosophy of Science project 3
5. 5) HOW COME DARWIN’S RADICAL IDEA WAS ACCEPTED EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS WAY AHEAD OF TIME?
Sometimes it so happens that when a scientist comes up with a theory it is not accepted, but
after a few years when some other scientist comes up with the same theory a few years later it
is accepted by the scientific community?
To understand this scenario we need to look at a few things:
a. The theory might have been way ahead of time.
b. The scientist might have not used the right vocabulary to explain the concepts.
c. The scientist might have presented his research to wrong scientific communities.
But if we see Einstein’s relativity theory or Darwin’s evolution theory, it was accepted by
people, even though it was different from the existing paradigms. For a work to get
acknowledged a few facts need to be checked.
a. Was the scientist in good terms with all his peers? Was he ready to listen to the
arguments given by his counter-scientists?
b. Was the proposed theory his first one or later one? Because if it is his second or third
theory then he has already developed a credibility for himself in his first two theories.
c. Was the theory presented in front of right optimistic scientific communities? If the
well-known communities accept his arguments then rest of the other communities
have to accept his theory as it has already been consented by the main ones.
Darwin was able to satisfy all the three factors. Evolution theory was not his first theory.
Moreover he was very much open to criticism from counter scientists and was never known
to have a cold war with any other scientist.
Charles Darwin would be remembered today, even if he had never published his work on
evolution, for his geology. His geological work ranged from physical geology, on volcanoes,
coral reefs and the upheaval and subsidence to land; to paleontology, collecting fossils during
his time on the Beagle voyage and studying fossil barnacles in his home in Downe, Kent. His
own work on geology contributed greatly to his views of life on earth, but he was equally
adept at understanding the work of others and how it related to his ideas. As a young man
Philosophy of Science project 4
6. Darwin was passionate about geology, dreaming of becoming a big name in the field. In
1859, just months before the publication of On The Origin of Species, Darwin won the
Wollaston Medal, the highest honour of the Geological Society of London ‘for his numerous
contributions to Geological Science’, marking him out as one of the great Victorian
geologists.[4]
6) CONCLUSION: Getting to a conclusion for such a debatable and contesting topic is a
realistically impossible goal. The conflict between Creationism and Evolutionism exist even
today in large numbers. Science has explained many theories. In big bang theory scientists
discovered the origin of life by explaining that universe expanded from a small ball of high
energy and temperature. The expansion happened because of the decrease in temperature.
The most basic question to be asked is why did the universe divide into subatomic and atomic
particles when the temperature decreased? Who assigned this property to objects? Why is it
that hot things always have to expand? There must have been a creator who has assigned the
properties in such a way so that the universe starts building up indirectly.
7) APPENDIX
Evolution theory is made up of five main principles.
First, to be in a position to procreate, organisms have constantly to fight for survival.
Second, on occasion random hereditary variations arise.
Third, every so often, one of these slight variations will confer on its bearer an
important
Advantage in the fight for survival.
Fourth, this individual and its descend-ants will procreate more than those organisms
lacking the useful acquisition.
Fifth, eventually enough of these changes will accumulate in order for a new species
to emerge.
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?
First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Philosophy of Science project 5
7. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their
distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who
discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the
universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should
be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radio astronomers Arno Penzias
and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -
270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which
pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists
were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for
their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the
observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
8) REFERENCES
[1]: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0858359.html
[2]: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy#cite_note-0
[4]: http://www.christs.cam.ac.uk/darwin200/pages/index.php?page_id=c3
[5]: The Golem by Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch
[6]: Philosophy of Science – A very short introduction by Samir Okasha.
[7]: Fabulous science: Fact and fiction in the history of scientific discovery by John Waller
[8]: The Black Swan Theory : The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
Philosophy of Science project 6