2. What role does imagination play in the Natural Sciences? How has the role of religious knowledge systems in shaping scientific knowledge changed over the course of scientific progress? Or has it?
4. In order for knowledge to classify as Science, must it be predictable (like the reappearance of Halley’s comet)? Why or why not?
5. "Science is the only genuine permanent revolution in human affairs, since it is committed to challenging the findings of its forebears.” TWE do you agree with this quote? Why or why not? Are there other AoKs you could replace science with in this quote? Explain.
2)Imagination has a great role in the Natural Sciences as imagination is the cause in the creation of the notions that are part of the NS. Religious knowledge systems have played a big role in the shaping of scientific knowledge because religious knowledge systems have often rejected scientific knowledge and instead of using reason to rationalize the information, faith has governed thought and thus society.
ReplyDelete3)I believe that his interest in these unscientific endeavors did not effect his scientific legacy because in a modern time, we have credited him with many discoveries and regard him with the upmost respect. I feel like it has heightened his historical legacy because Newton is seen a different light when we consider his other tasks. For me, this varying view of Newton allowed me to break him apart from the "perfect" scientific things we credit him and actually see him as a suffering individual who labored excessively over concepts we consider preposterous, yet he saw as extremely valuable. I think he became so obsessed with these notions because he was trying to prove his skills to society and reaffirm his intelligence to those who had told his otherwise. This is not reasonable because it is fueled by emotions rather than logic. There was no cold cut facts to his assertion; he did is merely on his emotional yearning.
4) For this questions, I think it could go both ways. I think most of science is discovered via spontaneity. Throughout scientific experiments, a hypothesis is set but not always does the conclusion prove the initial idea. Yet we as humans repeat the experiment numerous times because we consider something scientific knowledge. It holds to be, in a sense, "predictable" because we know that if we were to do the same experiment precisely, we would get the same result. But in another aspect of the argument, I think we need this to classify anything as knowledge, not necessarily as Science.
****Sorry that last question was confusing. I just couldn't really come to a conclusion about the scenario.****
3. I think his interests in unscientific endeavors does not affect his legacy. At that time these were new ideas and nobody new veracity of these certain ideas. The fact that he did more research and testing in these areas helps us prove why they are just myths (he didn't find anything significant). It was this somewhat skeptic drive and curiosity that lead to calculus and his laws.
ReplyDelete4. I think it has to predictable to an extent in that it has to be observable (empirical evidence). It has to be observable multiple times in order for it to be considered science. And like what Christina said it needs to be repeatable and the results should be predictable if the experiment is trying to prove certain laws.
1. I believe that scientific collaboration is only unique in that it is scientific. It is similar to collaboration in other Areas of Knowledge because collaborations in the natural sciences seek to validate or further the Area of Knowledge. For example, the collaboration between Halley and Newton produced a further understanding of how the universe worked (e.g., universal gravitation). A similar production stems from the collaborative efforts of Euclid and Archimedes (it is important to note that Archimedes' work was based upon Euclid's') from whom we attribute the beginnings of Trigonometry and Geometry in general.
ReplyDelete3. Newton's legacy is impacted by his study of "unscientific endeavors". I view the situation identical to Ravi in that, Alchemy and other "unscientific" things were new at the time. I believe that his willingness and curiosity to research these underdeveloped topics is what strengthened his legacy in a positive manner.