1. As discussed in class, the common ground between logical positivism and falsificationism is that they both emphasize the importance of using empirical facts. Logical positivism uses senses such as sight, smell and touch to base theories while falsificationism has the demarcation criteria (based on empirical facts) for testing if the hypothesis made is scientific or not (Sismondo,2010,13)
The difference between the two is that logical positivists believe in verifying their hypothesis to prove its validity while falsificationist believe that in order for a scientific hypothesis to be true it can be challenged and put through various tests (Sismondo,2010,15). Falsificatonists are very critical about what they consider scientific theory and …show more content…
There are a number of problems that are believed by STS scholars with Kuhn’s theory of incommensurability. As discussed in the class, Kuhn stated that there can be no way to compare two different paradigms. The first problem, as discussed in lecture slide 15, is that people in different paradigms do find a way to communicate by actions, ideas or some common ground. Secondly, also mentioned in lecture slide 15, there are trading zones between different paradigms which are crossed by people who communicate using some key words that are common to both. Another problem is the use of boundary objects; which are objects such as maps, drawings and other artefacts which can be shared between boundaries (Sismondo,2010,32). Scientists can take the data and information from one or many fields of science and apply it to their research and theory building. Instruments in experiments of one field can be used across different boundaries which weakens Kuhn’s theory of complete Incommensurability (Sismondo,2010,32). Since science is a field of collective works, complete isolation of all different regions in science would be harmful to its …show more content…
Rosalind Franklin was seen to exhibit Organized skepticism as she told Dr. Wilkins about not jumping to conclusions of the shape of the DNA, based on his personal preferences, without any confirmed evidence. The Head of the lab exhibited Communism when he warned Dr. Watson from stealing from the Laboratory work of other scientists. It was a notion to not be selfish and that the knowledge was for a greater community than himself alone. One of the norms violated in the discovery structure of DNA, was disinterestedness which was done by Crick and Watson as it felt like they were keen on working for the self-satisfaction of being the first to find the structure rather than giving it to the community; the two scientists were rushing like it was a race for themselves. Similarly, Dr. Watson (along with Francis Crick) were violating the norm of disinterestedness as they were always keen on stealing data of other people including that of Rosalind Franklin. However, it was also exhibited by Rosalind Franklin as she was hiding her research data from her peers. Rosalind Franklin acted in a counter norm to communism as her data was kept very secretive. Dr. Wilkins acted in disinterestedness too as it seemed like there was a competition between him and his partner Dr. Franklin. Dr. Wilkins, instead of working for the greater goal, felt focused on his own contributions towards the
The difference between the two is that logical positivists believe in verifying their hypothesis to prove its validity while falsificationist believe that in order for a scientific hypothesis to be true it can be challenged and put through various tests (Sismondo,2010,15). Falsificatonists are very critical about what they consider scientific theory and …show more content…
There are a number of problems that are believed by STS scholars with Kuhn’s theory of incommensurability. As discussed in the class, Kuhn stated that there can be no way to compare two different paradigms. The first problem, as discussed in lecture slide 15, is that people in different paradigms do find a way to communicate by actions, ideas or some common ground. Secondly, also mentioned in lecture slide 15, there are trading zones between different paradigms which are crossed by people who communicate using some key words that are common to both. Another problem is the use of boundary objects; which are objects such as maps, drawings and other artefacts which can be shared between boundaries (Sismondo,2010,32). Scientists can take the data and information from one or many fields of science and apply it to their research and theory building. Instruments in experiments of one field can be used across different boundaries which weakens Kuhn’s theory of complete Incommensurability (Sismondo,2010,32). Since science is a field of collective works, complete isolation of all different regions in science would be harmful to its …show more content…
Rosalind Franklin was seen to exhibit Organized skepticism as she told Dr. Wilkins about not jumping to conclusions of the shape of the DNA, based on his personal preferences, without any confirmed evidence. The Head of the lab exhibited Communism when he warned Dr. Watson from stealing from the Laboratory work of other scientists. It was a notion to not be selfish and that the knowledge was for a greater community than himself alone. One of the norms violated in the discovery structure of DNA, was disinterestedness which was done by Crick and Watson as it felt like they were keen on working for the self-satisfaction of being the first to find the structure rather than giving it to the community; the two scientists were rushing like it was a race for themselves. Similarly, Dr. Watson (along with Francis Crick) were violating the norm of disinterestedness as they were always keen on stealing data of other people including that of Rosalind Franklin. However, it was also exhibited by Rosalind Franklin as she was hiding her research data from her peers. Rosalind Franklin acted in a counter norm to communism as her data was kept very secretive. Dr. Wilkins acted in disinterestedness too as it seemed like there was a competition between him and his partner Dr. Franklin. Dr. Wilkins, instead of working for the greater goal, felt focused on his own contributions towards the