Cognitive Flexibility Evolutionists insist that genes constrain and direct human behavior. Cultural constructivists counter that culture, embodied in the arts, shapes human experience. Both these claims are true, but some evolutionists and some cultural constructivists have mistakenly regarded them as mutually exclusive D.
References and Further Reading 1. Naturalism and the Unity of Scientific Method The achievements of the natural sciences in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century have been most impressive.
Their investigation of nature has produced elegant and powerful theories that have not only greatly enhanced understanding of the natural world, but also increased human power and control over it.
Natural science is manifestly progressive, insofar as over time its theories tend to increase in depth, range and predictive power. It is also consensual. That is, there is general agreement among natural scientists regarding what the aims of science are and how to conduct it, including how to evaluate theories.
At least in the long run, natural science tends to produce consent regarding which theories are valid. Given this evident success, many philosophers and social theorists have been eager to import the methods of natural science to the study of the social world.
If social science were to achieve the explanatory and predictive power of natural science, it could help solve vexing social problems, such as violence and poverty, improve the performance of institutions and generally foster human well-being.
Those who believe that adapting the aims and methods of natural science to social inquiry is both possible and desirable support the unity of scientific method. Such advocacy in this context is also referred to as naturalism.
Of course, the effort to unify social and natural science requires reaching some agreement on what the aims and methods of science are or should be. A school of thought, broadly known as positivism, has been particularly important here.
However, brief mention of some of its key ideas is warranted, given their substantial influence on contemporary advocates of naturalism. The genesis of positivism can be traced to the ideas of the British empiricists of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, including most notably John LockeGeorge Berkeleyand David Hume.
As an epistemological doctrine, empiricism in essence holds that genuine knowledge of the external world must be grounded in experience and observation. The aim of scientific explanation is prediction, he argued, rather than trying to understand a noumenal realm that lies beyond our senses and is thus unknowable.
Comte also advocated the unity of scientific method, arguing that the natural and social sciences should both adopt a positivist approach.
For a variety of reasons, positivism began to fall out of favor among philosophers of science beginning in the latter half of the twentieth century. Not only did this implausibly relegate a slew of traditional philosophical questions to the category of meaningless, it also called into question the validity of employing unobservable theoretical entities, processes and forces in natural science theories.
Logical positivists held that in principle the properties of unobservables, such as electrons, quarks or genes, could be translated into observable effects. In practice, however, such derivations generally proved impossible, and ridding unobservable entities of their explanatory role would require dispensing with the most successful science of the twentieth century.
Despite the collapse of positivism as a philosophical movement, it continues to exercise influence on contemporary advocates of the unity of scientific method. Though there are important disagreements among naturalists about the proper methodology of science, three core tenets that trace their origin to positivism can be identified.
First, advocates of naturalism remain wedded to the view that science is a fundamentally empirical enterprise. Second, most naturalists hold that the primary aim of science is to produce causal explanations grounded in lawlike regularities.
And, finally, naturalists typically support value neutrality — the view that the role of science is to describe and explain the world, not to make value judgments. At a minimum, an empirical approach for the social sciences requires producing theories about the social world that can be tested via observation and experimentation.
Indeed, many naturalists support the view, first proposed by Karl Popper, that the line demarcating science from non-science is empirical falsifiability. According to this view, if there is no imaginable empirical test that could show a theory to be false, then it cannot be called a scientific theory.
Producing empirically falsifiable theories in turn necessitates creating techniques for systematically and precisely measuring the social world. Much of twentieth century social science involved the formation of such tools, including figuring out ways to operationalize social phenomena — that is, conceptualize them in such a way that they can be measured.
The data produced by operations in turn provide the raw, empirical material to construct and test theories. The purpose of a theory, according to naturalists, is to produce causal explanations of events or regularities found in the natural and social worlds.
Indeed, this is the primary aim of science. Scientific explanations of such regularities or events in turn require identification of lawlike regularities that govern such phenomena. An event or regularity is formally explained when its occurrence is shown to be logically necessary, given certain causal laws and boundary conditions.
This so-called covering law model thus views explanation as adhering to the structure of a deductive argument, with the laws and boundary conditions serving as premises in a syllogism.
These laws may be invoked to produce causal explanations of a variety of other events and regularities, such as the orbit of the planets in our solar system, the trajectory of projectiles, the collapse of stars, and so forth.Critically evaluate both the ontological and epistemological assumptions which underpin one of the philosophical traditions disc - Essay Example.
Faith and Reason. Traditionally, faith and reason have each been considered to be sources of justification for religious belief. Because both can purportedly serve this same epistemic function, it has been a matter of much interest to philosophers and theologians how the two are related and thus how the rational agent should treat claims derived from either source.
The Foundations of Value, Part I Logical Issues: Justification (quid facti),First Principles, and Socratic Method after Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Fries, & Nelson. Epistemological is quite a rare and popular topic for writing an essay, but it certainly is in our database.
I’m looking for. epistemological and ontological assumptions of postmodernism. The proceeding sections of the paper evaluate these assumptions. epistemological assumptions will be discussed in relation to positivist and.
Epistemological and ontological assumptions Academic Essay a brief description of your topic of research interest. Next, state the philosophical orientation that reflects your worldview and explain the epistemological and ontological assumptions of . Order Details/Description a brief description of your topic of research interest.
Next, state the philosophical orientation that reflects your worldview and explain the epistemological and ontological assumptions of this orientation. Then, explain how these assumptions lend themselves to one or more research approaches.
***Please note my research .