PHIL 2180 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking, Normal Science

11 views1 pages

juhzythegreat

4 Oct 2022

School

University of Guelph

Department

Philosophy

Course

PHIL 2180

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Truth and Science

Scientific progression is often a recognized and accepted feat by many people of the

modern world. In normal science, developments are made under a particular paradigm and are

deemed as progressive acts. This can almost look as if scientific development is a striving

towards a deeper truth or objective reality. In my opinion, this cannot be entirely true if objective

reality is not confined to the current paradigm. For example, with progression archived in our

third dimensional external physical world, through invention and innovation; I would argue that,

progression can be noted as such if it is understood to be a lateral movement under the influence

of an operational rubric, hence the paradigm.

In my mind, three-dimensional physical reality is meant for us to explore and discover

ourselves in this world. What is often considered as progression or scientific development, I

believe to be a development outwards laterally and simply an expression of anthropomorphic

culture development. In a way, human nature and development is scientific progression, it is

chaotic and fractal patterned, always turning up with nothing new, but a new way to perceive

said discovery.

Kuhn’s idea of change rather than progression, is the idea that I am speaking to. Progress

is only noted as such when its definition operates under a particular paradigm. It is truth, but only

because knowledge in said paradigm is relegated to serve its role in fulfilling the truth.

Change that results from normal scientific development is never truly progression

towards objective reality. In my mind this is simply because it is what gives us purpose, to

discover and understand. As long as we are perceptually bound by our human senses, and we

choose to use those senses for so-called discovery or progression, we will never really get closer

to objective truth. Much like the concept of time that we view as linear, because we are unable to

see the past or predict the future. We will never recognize time as a simultaneously infinitely

existing phenomenon in a single moment, because we are not meant to.

Reference:

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions / Thomas S. Kuhn; with an

introductory essay by Ian Hacking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Unlock document

This preview shows half of the first page of the document.
Unlock all 1 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

Scientific progression is often a recognized and accepted feat by many people of the modern world. In normal science, developments are made under a particular paradigm and are deemed as progressive acts. This can almost look as if scientific development is a striving towards a deeper truth or objective reality. In my opinion, this cannot be entirely true if objective reality is not confined to the current paradigm. In my mind, three-dimensional physical reality is meant for us to explore and discover ourselves in this world. What is often considered as progression or scientific development, i believe to be a development outwards laterally and simply an expression of anthropomorphic culture development. In a way, human nature and development is scientific progression, it is chaotic and fractal patterned, always turning up with nothing new, but a new way to perceive said discovery. Kuhn s idea of change rather than progression, is the idea that i am speaking to.

Related Questions

Which of the following is not true about scientific progress? (a) Science progresses through the creation and testing of models of nature. (b) Science advances only through the scientific method. (c) Science avoids explanations that invoke the supernatural.

A particle of mass m moves under the influence of an attractiveforce
F = -kr, where r is the distance from the force center.
a) What are the conserved quantities of this three-dimensionalmotion?
b) Write down an expression for the total energy.
c) Either from (b) or otherwise, derive an orbit equation relatingr to ?.
you do not need to do the intergral

Answer the following questions on the text below:

Text to evaluate:
OPINION: No, COVID-19 vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination should not be instated to 'protect the health and safety of Canadians'

New Democratic Party Leader Jagmeet Singh was quoted last week with the suggestion that public servants who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine could be disciplined and ultimately fired using existing collective agreement clauses.
The leader of Canada's most labor-friendly party recommends these worker dismissals in order to "protect the health and safety of Canadians." This logic is so blatantly flawed that it calls Singh's leadership, and that of other Canadian politicians supporting this view, into question. It's so bad that it makes me suspect that these politicians are in the pocket of big pharma. Conflict of interest in government is rife, as well all know.

These charlatans want to prevent the unvaccinated from having basic rights like the right to travel, work, and live normal lives. They think we should stab vaccines even into the people that can't be vaccinated according to their own doctors - if they are immunocompromised or have an allergy. What is to become of these people?
It's unclear if the vaccines work, anyway. The trials conducted by the vaccine manufacturers have only recorded whether vaccinated people were less likely to get symptomatic COVID than the unvaccinated. The trials did not check for a reduction in "cases" as measured by positive SARS-CoV-2 tests without symptoms, nor in COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths.

They also did not attempt to understand the impact of the vaccines on transmission. The interim authorization of the vaccines was based on their efficacy in reducing what amounts to cold symptoms in the vaccinated person.
Since the start of the mass vaccinations, researchers worldwide have examined whether vaccination does reduce the spread of COVID as a positive side effect. While it seems plausible that such an effect might occur, the results are meager. Some studies found modest reductions in the spread of the original SARS-CoV-2 variant, a far cry from "stopping" transmission. Those rogue scientists who call the vaccines a miracle cure are certainly not the smartest ones.
With the Delta variant, the effect has further shrunk and in a CDC-funded study, vaccinated individuals carried similar viral loads as the unvaccinated. According to the CDC, people who are double vaccinated can still spread the delta variant. According to recent research, hundreds of people who have been hospitalized with covid have had at least one vaccination. This shows that the vaccine does not prevent the transmission of the virus.

Countries like Israel and Iceland that have achieved high vaccination rates in the population are currently seeing their "case" counts rise dramatically. In the last two weeks, Israel's COVID-19 death count is now also following this concerning trajectory. This could have happened only if the vaccine was ineffective. It's clear what we should make of this.
Meanwhile, the province of Ontario with over 70% twice-vaccinated people is preparing for a fourth wave and already has significantly more cases, hospitalizations, and deaths than one year ago, when nobody was vaccinated. Perhaps being vaccinated is making people more willing to engage in risky behavior, so it in fact increases the danger rather than decreasing it.

So, what is a vaccine passport supposed to prove? What are vaccination mandates meant to achieve? Before Delta, vaccinated individuals may have been slightly less contagious than the unvaccinated. But with Delta, there does not appear to be a difference in spreading the virus. If anything, the vaccine works to protect the recipient only.
It is therefore nobody's business to know whether another person is vaccinated or not. And there is no reason to expect, pressure, or require another person to "take the jab." The campaign to vaccinate children and young adults is particularly offensive since they bear all the risks from short- and long-term adverse events and obtain no measurable benefits from the shot. Because there is a little protective effect, the advantages for individuals' safety are outweighed by the infringements on individuals' privacy. Expecting people to reveal their vaccine status before going on a plane to prevent covid is like asking people to reveal their financial status before entering a store to prevent thievery. There is no reason to think it would work, it infringes on people's privacy, and it's discriminatory. If this "financial status" policy was suggested by stores no one would accept it. And neither should we accept vaccine passports.

Requiring vaccine passports is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Some people have good reasons not to take the vaccine. I can't even pronounce most of the ingredients that go into these medications. Forcing people to be injected with something so unnatural can't be justified. Results from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) for the period of September 1 to December 12, 2020 show that over 23% of Canadians (excluding residents of the territories) aged 12 and older reported being unwilling to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Since nearly a quarter of Canadians are hesitant, we must respect the will of the people.

When we let the government chip away at our freedoms, who knows where it will end. Will the flu vaccine have similar mandates? If so, will our vaccine status also be made public? And if we allow this, what will stop them making all our private health information public, for anyone to see? We need to think carefully, or we could end up with no privacy at all.

Questions:

-Do a broad standardization of the main text below.

-Then evaluate the arguments in the article. You can structure this evaluation any way you prefer, for example, in order of when things are mentioned in the article or by theme (e.g., all fallacies in one section, all rhetorical devices in one section). Ensure that you discuss:
-Use of rhetoric/language in the article.
-Evaluate any particular argument types that you recognize(e.g., conditional arguments, categorical arguments, generalizations, causal argument, analogical, that you find in the main text (if there are relevant arguments in supplementary texts that are used to back up the claims in the main text, you can evaluate these too).
-Comment on and evaluate any fallacies you find in the text
-Comment on the strength of any remaining inferences and plausibility of any unsupported premises (may require research)
-Give an overall conclusion of whether the argument is good or bad, weighing up the evidence you have previously evaluated.

123bird

PHIL 2180 Lecture Notes - Lecture 4: Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking, Normal Science

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

PSYC 1000 Lecture : Weekly assignment 3

PSYC 308 Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Essentialism, Evelyn Fox Keller, Herbert Butterfield

SOCY 122 Study Guide - Episteme, Metatheory, Scientific Progress

Related Questions