Within the modern scientific world, the pursuit of knowledge entails the purposeful advancement of the field. The discovery and development of new information fuel such advancements. Similarly, disagreement also provides a basis for extended research. Carl Sagan suggests the heart of science is “an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes–an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.” Sagan’s statement suggests that disagreements may encompass the model’s logical foundation or evidence’s value; that is, disagreement largely depends on reason and sense perception. Furthermore, disagreement may entail personality clashes
…show more content…
Falsification is the notion that, after a theory is created, a scientist must seek to disprove said theory; through such a process, refinement strengthens the theory as scientists remove more possibilities (Popper 33-39). As falsification theory does not prove that the previous model was incorrect, it provides a less emotional way for researchers to develop new ideas. Likewise, the natural sciences possess specific criteria which must be met before an issue is further considered; this can be seen in the underlying mechanism of the scientific method. An observation results in a hypothesis, and experimentation either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Through such structured methodology, a concept becomes a theory, and a theory can then become a law. Within the natural sciences, skepticism is crucial to negate researcher bias. Certain scientists may not recognize errors in their own experiments, but another person may easily perceive such faults. Through additional observation, other scientists can largely falsify theories and further scientific knowledge. For example, falsification led to the direct acceptance of the Bohr …show more content…
As data trends and patterns can inhibit skeptical perception, accepting them as absolute truth may not be applicable. However, one may argue that such propositions may lead to future debate and reevaluation; propositions thereby promote scientific disagreement. Overgeneralization of these trends is apparent within the human science field of epidemiology. For example, Lisa Mosconi used PET technology to measure glucose metabolism in the brain and its relation to the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Results unveiled a correlation between reduced metabolic rate in the hippocampus and the onset of AD; however, genetic factors were not measurable in such instances. While brain metabolism acts as a signal for the disease, the overall trend is reductionist if it does not also account for hereditary factors. Such differences in perspective often lead to new developments within the sciences. The transformation of behavioral psychology into modern cognitive psychology highlights these differing views. Psychologist Edward Tolman countered the behaviorist belief that anything which was not observable was not important. Tolman proposed that unobservable processes could be objectively and scientifically inferred from observable behavior. His research ultimately led to cognitive neuroscience’s development and the relative dismissal of aforementioned behaviorist practices. His
Falsification is the notion that, after a theory is created, a scientist must seek to disprove said theory; through such a process, refinement strengthens the theory as scientists remove more possibilities (Popper 33-39). As falsification theory does not prove that the previous model was incorrect, it provides a less emotional way for researchers to develop new ideas. Likewise, the natural sciences possess specific criteria which must be met before an issue is further considered; this can be seen in the underlying mechanism of the scientific method. An observation results in a hypothesis, and experimentation either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Through such structured methodology, a concept becomes a theory, and a theory can then become a law. Within the natural sciences, skepticism is crucial to negate researcher bias. Certain scientists may not recognize errors in their own experiments, but another person may easily perceive such faults. Through additional observation, other scientists can largely falsify theories and further scientific knowledge. For example, falsification led to the direct acceptance of the Bohr …show more content…
As data trends and patterns can inhibit skeptical perception, accepting them as absolute truth may not be applicable. However, one may argue that such propositions may lead to future debate and reevaluation; propositions thereby promote scientific disagreement. Overgeneralization of these trends is apparent within the human science field of epidemiology. For example, Lisa Mosconi used PET technology to measure glucose metabolism in the brain and its relation to the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Results unveiled a correlation between reduced metabolic rate in the hippocampus and the onset of AD; however, genetic factors were not measurable in such instances. While brain metabolism acts as a signal for the disease, the overall trend is reductionist if it does not also account for hereditary factors. Such differences in perspective often lead to new developments within the sciences. The transformation of behavioral psychology into modern cognitive psychology highlights these differing views. Psychologist Edward Tolman countered the behaviorist belief that anything which was not observable was not important. Tolman proposed that unobservable processes could be objectively and scientifically inferred from observable behavior. His research ultimately led to cognitive neuroscience’s development and the relative dismissal of aforementioned behaviorist practices. His