Is science rational is the central concern of this paper. The paper mainly examines the wisdom of science based on Thomas Kuhn objectivity, value judgment and theory choice and Harvey Siegel’s examination about the rationality of science. In doing so for Kuhn, the central argument of scientific rationality is reasonableness and logicality in justification and to be reasonable and logically justifiable for what we do. What ensures that science is rational is the dedication to evidence. It also explores Siegel’s concept of scientific method and his justification of the received view of science. Thus, I employed philosophical method of analysis and phenomenology. This paper maintains that choosing rational activity of our reason for the rival theories is not determined by universal standard. I thus, suggested that his rationality of science as lack of objective reasons for why scientists should favour one theory over another. Instead, my main argument Kuhn rationality of science in his five criterion of theory choice is imprecise. Because, this standard restrict one’s which is theory choices are not sufficient to persuade or clearly to confirm the choice of one paradigm over the other. Thus, I deffend the position that no rational justification outside paradigm and I argues, against a kind of rationality with which science should be identified and proceeds in agreement.
| Published in | International Journal of Philosophy (Volume 8, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11 |
| Page(s) | 61-67 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Science, Rationality of Science, Theory Choice, Objectivity, Value Judgment, Scientific Method
| [1] | Sebastian de H. (2019), Science and Philosophy: A Love-Hate Relationship. Cambridge University Press |
| [2] | Wogu, I. (2016), A Critical Analysis of Karl Popper’s Verisimilitude Thesis and the Hallmark of Science. International Journal of Contemporary Applied Sciences Vol. 3, No. 8, August 2016 (ISSN: 2308-1365) www.ijcas.net 14 |
| [3] | Thagard, P. (2004). Rationality and science. In A. Mele & P. Rawlings (Eds.), Handbook of rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (pp. 363-379). |
| [4] | Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
| [5] | Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003) Theory and Reality: an Introduction to Philosophy of Science, Chicago and London, the University of Chicago Press |
| [6] | Kuhn, T. (1977) “Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice” in Marc Lange(ed.), Philosophy of Science; An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing |
| [7] | Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolution, 2ndEd, London: Chicago University Press |
| [8] | Salmon. W. (1983) “Carl G. Hempel on the Rationality of Science” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 80, No. 10, Part 1: Eightieth Annual Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Divisionpp. 555-562 |
| [9] | Siegel, H. (1985) “What Is the Question Concerning the Rationality of Science” in Philosophy of Science. JSTOR: Vol. 52, No. 4, PP. 517-537. University of Chicago Press, available on. |
| [10] | Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: The Free Press |
| [11] | Zamora Bonilla J. P., (2010), “What games do scientists play? Rationality, objectivity, and the social construction of scientific knowledge”, EPSA Epistemology and Methodology of Science: Launch of the European Philosophy of Science Association, ed. M. Suárez, Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 323–332. |
| [12] | Dusek, V. (2006) Philosophy of Science and Technology. Black Well Publishing. |
| [13] | Jennifer K. Uleman 2010, An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Cambridge University Press |
| [14] | Psillos, S. (1999). Scientific realism: How science tracks the truth. London: Routledge. |
| [15] | Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228. |
| [16] | Popper, K. (2002) Conjectures and Refutations, (Routledge & Kegan Paul New York). |
| [17] | Kenaw, Setargew (PhD), (2015) Unpublished Lecture Notes on philosophy of science: Addis Ababa University, Department of Philosophy. |
APA Style
Abdeta Mamo Hiko. (2020). Is Science Rational: Critical Analysis on Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice and Harvey Siegel’s Inquiry Concerning the Rationality of Science. International Journal of Philosophy, 8(3), 61-67. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11
ACS Style
Abdeta Mamo Hiko. Is Science Rational: Critical Analysis on Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice and Harvey Siegel’s Inquiry Concerning the Rationality of Science. Int. J. Philos. 2020, 8(3), 61-67. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11
AMA Style
Abdeta Mamo Hiko. Is Science Rational: Critical Analysis on Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice and Harvey Siegel’s Inquiry Concerning the Rationality of Science. Int J Philos. 2020;8(3):61-67. doi: 10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11,
author = {Abdeta Mamo Hiko},
title = {Is Science Rational: Critical Analysis on Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice and Harvey Siegel’s Inquiry Concerning the Rationality of Science},
journal = {International Journal of Philosophy},
volume = {8},
number = {3},
pages = {61-67},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijp.20200803.11},
abstract = {Is science rational is the central concern of this paper. The paper mainly examines the wisdom of science based on Thomas Kuhn objectivity, value judgment and theory choice and Harvey Siegel’s examination about the rationality of science. In doing so for Kuhn, the central argument of scientific rationality is reasonableness and logicality in justification and to be reasonable and logically justifiable for what we do. What ensures that science is rational is the dedication to evidence. It also explores Siegel’s concept of scientific method and his justification of the received view of science. Thus, I employed philosophical method of analysis and phenomenology. This paper maintains that choosing rational activity of our reason for the rival theories is not determined by universal standard. I thus, suggested that his rationality of science as lack of objective reasons for why scientists should favour one theory over another. Instead, my main argument Kuhn rationality of science in his five criterion of theory choice is imprecise. Because, this standard restrict one’s which is theory choices are not sufficient to persuade or clearly to confirm the choice of one paradigm over the other. Thus, I deffend the position that no rational justification outside paradigm and I argues, against a kind of rationality with which science should be identified and proceeds in agreement.},
year = {2020}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Is Science Rational: Critical Analysis on Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory Choice and Harvey Siegel’s Inquiry Concerning the Rationality of Science AU - Abdeta Mamo Hiko Y1 - 2020/07/30 PY - 2020 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11 T2 - International Journal of Philosophy JF - International Journal of Philosophy JO - International Journal of Philosophy SP - 61 EP - 67 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2330-7455 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijp.20200803.11 AB - Is science rational is the central concern of this paper. The paper mainly examines the wisdom of science based on Thomas Kuhn objectivity, value judgment and theory choice and Harvey Siegel’s examination about the rationality of science. In doing so for Kuhn, the central argument of scientific rationality is reasonableness and logicality in justification and to be reasonable and logically justifiable for what we do. What ensures that science is rational is the dedication to evidence. It also explores Siegel’s concept of scientific method and his justification of the received view of science. Thus, I employed philosophical method of analysis and phenomenology. This paper maintains that choosing rational activity of our reason for the rival theories is not determined by universal standard. I thus, suggested that his rationality of science as lack of objective reasons for why scientists should favour one theory over another. Instead, my main argument Kuhn rationality of science in his five criterion of theory choice is imprecise. Because, this standard restrict one’s which is theory choices are not sufficient to persuade or clearly to confirm the choice of one paradigm over the other. Thus, I deffend the position that no rational justification outside paradigm and I argues, against a kind of rationality with which science should be identified and proceeds in agreement. VL - 8 IS - 3 ER -
Information
Email: