Boost science is obtained along with the Latin term Santa, which is a method command. Science is a person who tries to get to know how the matter earth effort. Geometrician and thinker of it Bertrand Russell have report science in the good feasible word, that is trying to find anything, found on watching and out of the answer the particular reality over the earth and the rule that attached them. In an aspect of Russell’s explanation, we tin more split the technical system.
Science has a special scope
The purpose of science
The purpose of science is to explain the material world, as a whole, its purpose is to explain exactly how nature works. In order to achieve this goal, science works on testable assumptions. In order for an assumption to be testable, it is necessary for it to give rise to some rational expectations. Look at this assumption. “Tea improves wrestlers’ performance”
This hypothesis is worth testing and testing, as it raises the following expectations; Tea improves performance. It has a bad effect on performance. Tea has nobody to do with production.
Only the pretty view of science
Only the pretty view of it is that it not one analysis the right theory but as well think about test and trial required. That is why scientific opinion is not only testable but in fact, it has been tested. A single collection is not the most preferred choice, but real science prefers that different scientists repeat their experiments as often as possible.
Naturally, science is greatly further compared to what has been utter as yet, but it is sufficient to get to know the initial component of the technical system. This will help in answering the misconceptions about science that some atheists have established that science leads to atheism ..!
Hypothesis number one: Science is the only way to know the truth and it can answer all the questions.
This claim is called scientific. According to him, if a statement cannot be made scientifically, then it is not true. Discussions with atheists and humanists on various occasions have shown that they have the same opinion. Science is not the only way to clarify the truth about the world. The limited scope of the scientific method makes it clear that it is unable to answer all the questions. Here are some of its limitations:
- It is limited to observation.
- is morally neutral.
- It cannot do personal research.
- It can not reply (why) object are incident.
- Can’t answer some metaphysical (metaphysical) questions.
- Can’t prove the absolute truth.
However, before we discuss the limitations of science, it is worth noting that the theory of science is self-negating. Scientism claims that no statement is true if it cannot be scientifically proven, then the above sentence cannot be scientifically proven. It is as if it is said that “Urdu language No sentence can be more than three words “This claim is proving itself wrong because this sentence itself is more than three words.
1– Limited to observation:
This may seem like a mistake, but it is not fully understood. technical are every time little to their watching, for the model, if a scientist needs to try out the result of tyramine on help and move, he is little to the figure and kind of this help and move. The scientific philosopher Elliott Snowber sheds light on this point in his article “Experimentation”.
Scientists expect the Task Force for Birds to be limited to their death. And the mistake is that science is forced to focus on solving death-related bird work. Not only do scientists need observations, but also for future observations to draw new conclusions that may contradict past observations. (The Problem of Induction) Another limitation is that due to advances in technology or repeated research, What we are not able to observe today, we will be able to observe in the future. The invention and use of microscopes and electronic microscopes is the best example of scientific progress. Can’t set up because it can change with better observation.
Science is an ethical objective, at the moment it does not aim that scientists do not possess morals, yet it carries out to denote that science is impotent on condition that the foundation for morals. For the model, science does not denote morals or its motive. Can not describe what is false and what is true?
But that doesn’t mean that it can’t be part of a mix of different disciplines that teach ethics. However, it itself fails to provide a basis for deciding what we can imagine and what we can’t.
Science does say “what is” but does not say “what should be”, we cannot deduce from the phrase “what is” what “should be“. It is a philosophical phrase but to some extent.