The Theory of Knowledge

The general and widespread acceptance of Sir Isaac Newton’s models and laws may often be taken for granted, but this has not always been so. Throughout history, scientists and philosophers have built on each other’s theories to create improved and often revolutionary models. Although Newton was neither the first nor the last to bring major innovations to society, he was one of the most notable ones; many of his contributions are still in use today. With the formulation of his laws of motion, Sir Isaac Newton contributed to the downfall of Aristotelianism and provided a universal quantitative system for approximating and explaining a wide range of phenomena of space and the physics of motion, revolutionizing the study and understanding

Galileo’s findings from his telescopic observations were revolutionary because he showed that the heavens were not perfect.

Q1A) In what ways does the biological constitution of a living organism determine, influence or limit its sense perception?

It makes no difference if the theory explains old facts differently from the earlier theory, just that they are explained. This necessity guarantees the accumulative development of science. Despite a new theory explaining new facts, if there is no explanation for the old ones then there are no considerations of finalized advancement and no immediate replacement of them (Stanovich, 2007). What will occur will be both the old and new theory coexisting as probable ideas until a new theory abdicates them null and void? Leading us astray is the breakthrough model of scientific research by suggesting that new findings violate the principle of connectivity (Stanovich, 2007). This suggestion deems risky because by abandoning the connectivity principle, the primary beneficiaries are purveyors of counterfeit science and incredulous theories. Notorious are headlines that lead off with “New Breakthrough.” Theories such as these acquire most of their interest and publicity by claims that they are astoundingly new. The next deception is to cast out past information by asserting them impertinent. The reason being given, that such information does not yet exist due to the newness of the theory. This breeds an environment of pseudoscience. Better explained is by the evolutionary theory the ghost of creationism, with its connectivity display of such different areas of science as morphology,

In Baron Reeds, “A New Argument for Skepticism,” a new idea is brought to light to agree with the argument for skepticism. Usually, skeptical arguments require knowledge to be

When observing the progression of knowledge within a discipline, one may begin to notice trends, specifically that the aspects of knowledge that were beneficial to society were further developed, which outdated the aspects of knowledge that were disadvantageous. This trend is similar to the principles of “natural selection,” defined in the natural sciences as “the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.”

Have you ever heard of the story of an apple dropping on Isaac Newton’s head. That giving him the Ah moment of the theory of gravitation. Well that the story is not true, however what had happened was that Isaac Newton was walking in his orchard that was at his home. Then he saw an apple had fallen off the tree and he thought “ Why did the apple fall downwards not sideways or upward”. That had sparked the great journey of Isaac Newton.

Century after century of Christendom saw superstition supplanted by science. The Earth isn’t flat, nor does the sun revolve around it. Our intuitions about the world have mostly been wrong: one by one collapsing under the weight of scientific discovery.

The goal of science as a collective institution is to produce more and more accurate explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world has become what it is today. The scientific community works toward these explanations through a systematic organization of knowledge about the material universe. It is the principle concern of science to frame theories and discover patterns of relations among an incredible amount of data in such a way that a small number of principles can explain a larger amount of propositions concerning these phenomena. The scientific community progresses by detecting

Olbers Paradox has been around since Kepler in the 1500’s but is named after Heinrich Olber’s from 1826. The foundation for this paradox rests on the assumption that the universe is unchanging with infinite proportions, meaning it is inifinitely old with an infinite number of stars that are scattered evenly throughout it, whose light shines infinitely. We now know these things to be untrue but they made plenty of sense to astronomers who did not understand lifetimes of stars or motions in

Through time, many types of people have created stories, myths, and ideas of how we came to be. Until the nineteenth and twentieth century, the evolution of theories was slow. According to Shipper, “New telescopic devices permitting people to see parts of the universe never before imagined, in new ways never before conceived, have advanced man's theoretical capabilities on

or that death is not the end. There is no way to prove that this is

This quote claims that the viewpoint of a learner is not only present but necessary in the methodology of the pursuit of knowledge in all scenarios. While I disagree with the absolute, I do agree with the statement in select contexts. However, in objective human sciences, the subjectivity of a knower’s perspective and bias are not only nonessential, but may be dangerous to the initiation, methodology, and resulting outcomes of inquiry. Meanwhile, in the study of ethics, perspective is theorized to be totally essential to the pursuit of knowledge by some and totally nonessential by others. Even in the pursuit of knowledge in a specific subjective area, it is possible to limit the subjectivity of one’s perspective by attempting to disregard the values of one’s context. Whether or not a knower 's perspective is essential to the inquiry of knowledge depends upon the objectives and aspirations of the thinker and the individual circumstances of the topic within the human sciences or ethics.

Any idea which is not conceived using fundamentally sound principles is going to be filled with layers and sub-layers of inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and half-truths. As those same misleading, ideas are used to create others, the system of small logical flaws compounds, multiplies, and creates wide variances between the provable facts and clear fallacies. A foundational group of irrefutable truths must be created in order to facilitate the development of truly accurate, consistent, and fulfilling ideas in the world of knowledge. Without such a group, the only conceivable truths would be those that can always be disproven via conjecture or hypocritical skepticism. This concept of snowballing inaccuracies is the driving force behind Rene

The world of science, as we know it today, is a difficult subject to grasp. So many new ideas are present and these new ideas are not interchangeable. Some parts do work together although as a whole they don’t fully coincide with each other. The three basic ideas that science is now based upon come from Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. I call these ideas/theories “new” based on what I classify the state of the scientific community of today. After looking at what is going on in science, it is clear to me that the scientific world is in a crisis state. According to Kuhn, a crisis state is when science is in the middle of choosing a particular paradigm to work under. For scientists, there is a general theme