Alan Chalmers suggests that science is not a ‘general category’. This could refer to the fact that there is too much variation in this paradigm for there to be generalisation. Questioning how much of science can be transferable to society. Science is associated with procedures that are conducted in a rational manner, and therefore the results can equate to theories. The “theory of knowledge” may be a broad spectrum for there to be a concept. How would we define logic? He outlines that there is ‘no concept of truth’; and attempting to define truth is problematic as there’s debate on how to validate and prove something is concrete. The statement references to the fact that we should ask questions of why we trust in science and who we trust within…show more content… Especially taking note on the results section, he says the sections ‘consists of a stream of factual information in which it is considered extremely bad form to discuss the significance of the results you are getting’. One is not able to simply get an understanding and then discuss the findings from this ‘results’ section so validating and questioning these facts becomes hard to do. He protests if there can be any ‘general truths’ from the evidence found. Because without explanations and concept there’s nothing meaningful about the factual…show more content… You have to forget prerequisites to make a conclusion on finding with new evidence. He also mentions that the formulation of hypothesis is ‘guesswork’ and there’s not a methodological way to formulate a hypothesis and therefore how can we falsify it? Things that are verified come from the experiments conducted by scientists and their logic.
Howitt and Wilson (2014) argue that the reader does not need to know about every aspect and failure that the scientists have had to overcome before they figure out the findings. It needs to be concise and relevant. Howitt also references to the fact that when presenting published findings it is only one scientist or a group of scientists that are mentioned to be involved in findings. However, it does not take into account the fact that scientists will build into previous experiments and findings and work on top of what people have been studying for years to be able to come to a final understanding.
Chalmers’s discuses in his book, that people claim science is based on facts and therefore not opinions on others, however when science was new in the 17th century they did not accept that ‘facts of observation’ was enough to validate a claim or hypothesis. He revisits that fact that authority of science is now allowing it to have the freedom that it has
