Koresland, Shaphan
Professor Dan Lainer-Vos
Soci 210A: Science, Technology and Social Conflict
October 8, 2014
Midterm Short Essay
When it comes to the argument between Niels and Erica it is fairly obvious that they both have valid points. Erica seems to be arguing that medical research involving mice has reached a point where she feels the anomalies of the research has hit a tipping point. She believes that there needs to be a shift in the current paradigm. Niels on the other hand argues that we have benefitted greatly from the research derived from the use of mice as the core lab animal. The two do not seem to be arguing directly against each other, but rather they seem to be viewing the article from different perspectives within the progress …show more content…
As scientists learn more and more about their particular field, and others that may overlap, they find better theories that are able to explain certain phenomena. There is always more than one way to explain reality. Scientific theories are never 100% but scientists have been able to prove that other theories do not answer as many questions or are too complicated. The theories we consider to be true have been tested over and over and have yet been be proven false.
There are always anomalies within a scientific paradigm, or normal science. When there is greater knowledge gained there becomes better ways to explain nature that can encompass previous anomalies. Once these anomalies buildup this is when science runs into a crisis and the potential for a scientific revolution. So as humans continue to search for new ideas and gain further knowledge about all that is around us we must change our paradigms to continue our intellectual journey. The paths towards crises provide the opportunity to reshape the way we view that which is in front of us. The only way we could avoid scientific crisis is to reach a point where there is nothing more to learn or to stop being
Professor Dan Lainer-Vos
Soci 210A: Science, Technology and Social Conflict
October 8, 2014
Midterm Short Essay
When it comes to the argument between Niels and Erica it is fairly obvious that they both have valid points. Erica seems to be arguing that medical research involving mice has reached a point where she feels the anomalies of the research has hit a tipping point. She believes that there needs to be a shift in the current paradigm. Niels on the other hand argues that we have benefitted greatly from the research derived from the use of mice as the core lab animal. The two do not seem to be arguing directly against each other, but rather they seem to be viewing the article from different perspectives within the progress …show more content…
As scientists learn more and more about their particular field, and others that may overlap, they find better theories that are able to explain certain phenomena. There is always more than one way to explain reality. Scientific theories are never 100% but scientists have been able to prove that other theories do not answer as many questions or are too complicated. The theories we consider to be true have been tested over and over and have yet been be proven false.
There are always anomalies within a scientific paradigm, or normal science. When there is greater knowledge gained there becomes better ways to explain nature that can encompass previous anomalies. Once these anomalies buildup this is when science runs into a crisis and the potential for a scientific revolution. So as humans continue to search for new ideas and gain further knowledge about all that is around us we must change our paradigms to continue our intellectual journey. The paths towards crises provide the opportunity to reshape the way we view that which is in front of us. The only way we could avoid scientific crisis is to reach a point where there is nothing more to learn or to stop being