Kuhn's Argument Analysis

throughout time the same scientific data has been viewed differently by people in various global locations. These differences could very possibly be caused by each person having their own unique observation. Kuhn believes our world view to be all we have, it is how we view the world observe and experience the world but there is no way to discover how close our world view is to reality. Here, Kuhn suggest that each individual being experiences the world differently. His reasoning is as follows: because our brain is responsible for our experience, and our experiences happen only in our brain, it is logical to assume that we cannot possibly share experiences because we cannot share brains. It is important to recognize that science is not only reliant on observation, and thus void of objectivity, but it is also susceptible to non-rational considerations such as faith, ego, politics, human emotions, group pressures, and gestalt psychology. It is factual that science is able to be affected by outside influences, hence the argument that claims science is losing objectivity. The scientific community, along with those in a position …show more content…
In a utopian world, doers of science would be completely virtuous and moral. In this instance, science would be reliable to the furthest extent due to a void of any personal bias. Science, therefore, would reach its’ ceiling in terms of objectivity. This is the ultimate goal of science and if this were to be true, it would completely eradicate my argument that science has continued to grow progressively further from objectivity. The only relevant objection to this position would be to argue that pure virtue and morality is unachievable by any human being due to emotions and human nature. But if it was the case that doers of science were completely virtuous and moral, it would remain illogical to possess the slightest doubt of the objectivity of