Difference Between Science And Scientific Method

Register to read the introduction… According to The Nature of Science, it is “a determination of what is most likely to be correct at the current time with the evidence at our disposal.” It aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. It views knowledge as a systematic enterprise that has the ability to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It also refers to a body of knowledge that is able to be rationally explained and reliably applied. It is viewed as a way of pursuing knowledge and restriction to those types that seek to explain the phenomena’s of the material world. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. It is not meant to prove theories, but rule out alternative explanations until a reasonable conclusion is reached. The term “natural science” is closely associated with the scientific method. The scientific method presents itself as a disciplined way to study the natural world. “The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way” (The Nature of Science and the Scientific Method). It produces a thought experiment or hypothesis. Science can also be “a human endeavor and is subject to personal prejudices, misapprehensions, and bias” (The Nature of Science and the Scientific …show more content…
For example, say that there is someone who has been newly introduced to mechanics and they want to gain knowledge on how an engine works. By reading up on facts about mechanics only helps them obtain half of the knowledge they could possible earn. However, if they were to physically take an actual engine apart piece by piece and learn about the different roles played by each component of the engine, they would eventually know enough about each part of an engine to put it back together. I believe for this to be true knowledge for the reason that the mechanic could encounter a different type of engine and use the knowledge gained from assembling the previous engine. The mechanic would eventually use reverse engineering to assemble the foreign engine because engines are nothing more than the sum of its components, meaning that to get to a major conclusion, one must come up with many smaller conclusions to form the big one. This example not only justifies my thoughts on the quote but also brings up the question of whether or not we as humans can use reverse engineer an …show more content…
Most scientists believe that all materialistic things can be reduced to their smallest physical particles. Say for an example, a human mind. Is it possible to reduce it to smaller component parts or physical functions of the brain? If knowledge is simply just the “systematic organization of facts”, then how exactly would it have the ability to learn through trial and error? If the mind was only a system of organized facts, then it could be easily reverse engineered similar to other engines. The idea of mechanism, which thinks of living things as organic machines, can also be attached to the views of the