YouTube URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4HQZrOeZ7E In the video, Hilary Put

Question

YouTube URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4HQZrOeZ7E

In the video, Hilary Putnam is offering a criticism of science as a value-free activity with the ability to clearly demarcate fact from value. In your own words, describe what you understand Putnam's criticism of science to be. What do you make of his criticism? Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? If he is right, does this mean that we have to abandon all hope of science being able to produce knowledge (and truth)? Why or why not? in 300 words

Explanation / Answer

When a person talks in terms of facts, he/she rarely considers the emotional background of the event. And so is with science. Science is a fact based system and completely disregards human emotions in its pursuits. As when Galileo and Copernicus said that earth was round and went around the sun, they disregarded the emotions of the catholics of that time who believed otherwise. So, the criticism here is that the scientific facts are believed by a handful people but emotionally opposed by a majority.

However, the picture is changing. The science has evolved and people have become more knowledgeable. Even though a person doesn't know how a microwave oven works, he/she still uses it on a regular basis. People who are able to program a computer are also given the tag of scientists. Which really doesn't require the knowledge of old science. Old science includes mechanics, electromagnetism and optics. A computer scientist can excel in his field without having the knowledge of old science.

The line between science and non science is becoming more and more blurred. Deductive logic is a pre requisite in old science but not in the recent fields of science. Recent fields work well with the inductive logic. Some examples being social science and political science.

The reason these fields can be termed as science is because there has never been an exact definition of science. People think that anything provable in majority is science. Physicists keep for themselves only a 5% room of error. Whereas error in metrology can lead up to 60-70%. That doesn't refrain from it being called a science.

In the end people instinctively know what real science is. The field that gives expected outcomes more succesfully than otherwise.

So, abandoning science is not a solution. Although people perceptively can differentiate between real science and pseudo science, defining the scope of science explicitly is what is needed.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Y
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.