Constructivism on the contrary, though it does not agree with empiricism, as it sees all social scientific observation as a non-objective encounter based on the fact that science itself is a socially constructed aspect of the human condition, in much the same way that faith, philosophy or any number of other explanations are socially constructed and driven by social situations and encounters.

A social constructionists deny that science is an objective encounter with the world, as suggested by the "realists." The values of science do not arise out of any privileged access to nature, but are simply contingent social constructions. In this view science is just one story of many about the world and the privileged knowledge that scientists claim is just a manifestation of their ideological success in convincing us of this. This controversy is important to social scientists, for if a version of social constructionism is right then any….

As experiments became more complex, however, especially noting embryonic development, scientists found that the process that occurs in vitro parallels the evolutionary process of nerve system complexity, and then becomes more qualitative in that not every aspect of thought can be explained by a simple combination of neurotransmitters (neuron coded molecules) or electrical events. While it is true that the electrical even between two cells allows for communication, the subtle and complex nature of neural chemistry cannot completely define the process of memory and thought.

Thus, we see that not only was there an evolution in experimentation, but of the very definition of the neural system from a more purist rationalistic position, to one that combines the material with the immeasurable to form the next generation of conundrum.

EFEENCES

Honderich, T., ed. (1995). Problems in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.

Lacey, a.. (1996). A Dictionary of Philosophy. 1st ed., outledge.

Lynch, obert. (2008).….

Empiricism
henever a person chooses a side in the traditional debate between rationalism and empiricism, that person is necessarily making a statement about how much people should trust the evidence of their own senses. However, there are a number of instances in which I think that sensory evidence can be deceptive. hile I think the allure of empiricism is undoubtedly seductive, for the precise reason that sensory experience can be so vivid, I think this is a limited worldview. I would like to advance my own preference for rationalism by looking at two basic objections to empiricism -- the presence of innate knowledge in the mind, and the potentially deceptive nature of the senses. The former, I hope, will show that rational processes and structures to a certain degree exist without need of sensory evidence -- that reason and logic are, to some extent, a thing apart from perception. The latter….

Philosophy: Empiricism
Empiricism: Does it Collapse into Idealism?

What is Empiricism?

It is important at first to identify the fact that "empiricism" may refer to a method -- for example, the "empirical method" of observing child behavior, or an "empirical study of cancer in rats" -- and it also may refer to the philosophy (or the theory) that embraces empiricism. That philosophy of empiricism, by one definition, "has its roots in dualist theories of perception and communication" (Vesey, 1976). The "perception" part of the theory, Vesey explains (vii), is when a person's mind, "as well as his body, is acted on when he perceives something." That is to say, that "something" that his body is acted upon -- let's say it is a large tree swaying in the wind -- stimulates his sense organs and his nervous system; but beyond that stimulation, there is also a "sensation" or a "sense-impression" which happens when….

Zeno's Paradoxes And Empiricism
This research paper attempts to provide some insights into the life of Zeno of Elea and his paradoxes or arguments against plurality, motion, place, and hearing. The paper also provides information regarding Empiricism and its relation to plurality, motion, place, and hearing. By comparing and contrasting these notions the paper aims to better understand the empirical argument and Zeno's paradoxes.

Historians have noted that Zeno did not actually contribute to the School of Eleatic philosophy but only because his main objective was to devote all of philosophical efforts to refute his mentor's opponents' views. That mentor was said to have been Parmenides who was a teacher on the subjects of the illusions we now know as motion and multiplicity. His teachings revolved around a basic concept that there is a 'True Being' which equates to an absolute one which entails a complete lack of plurality or change. In….

Rationalism/empiricism; deduction/induction; intuition/scientific method; yin/yang. First of all, one should ask oneself if experience be complete without polar opposites. This writer would answer "probably not."
Rationalism purports the basic notion that at least some concepts or ideas are independent of our experience and that some truth is known by reason alone. In other words, truth can be a priori in that knowledge can be true by definition. This strength of this argument manifests itself when we explore issues about the relations between our own subjective concepts. I do not need to impose a research study to know who my parents are, what kind of food I like, what type of person I am attracted to, etc. If I have a concept of God, then by intuition I know that there is right and wrong, meaning to life, and an eternal existence etc. If I am an atheist then by intuition I….

ationalism is based on logic, or -- rather -- the proper ordering of things. That order, according to Plato, is necessarily hierarchical and his Allegory of the Cave explicitly shows it: the philosopher is one who has striven to leave behind the shadows and worked to climb the hill, until he has reached a revelation of sorts. It is then his duty to go back and instruct the ignorant who still live in the darkness of the cave by appealing to their intellect. While empiricism explains all knowledge as deriving from experience, ationalism explains all knowledge as logical. In other words, experience is not necessary to gain philosophical wisdom, for the life of the mind allows one to logically grasp one conclusion from the next. Platonic ationalism emphasizes the intellect over sheets of data.
In conclusion, I prefer the Platonic theory of knowledge because I find many of the modern….

One need only refer to the preceding example to prove this fact. In this example, glass on the floor with spilled water and the author's testimonial to what happened all add up to the fact that there a glass was broken. In this case, there is no difference between what appears as truth (that a glass has broken), and what in fact is truth (that a glass is broken). Although reasons may exist as to why such an event happened (whether or not the author was distracted or perhaps is just innately clumsy), the fact that it took place is indisputable, and demonstrates that the author is wrong about the fact that there is "always" a distinction between appearances and reality.
In all actuality, the most suitable alternative to the philosophical position propagated by the author of this particular positing is a synthesis of global skepticism with empiricism and rationalism.….

priori justification, differentiate it from a posteriori justification and see where each fits in the context.
As such, following an excellent essay on the item, a priori knowledge refers to a proposition that is "knowable independently of experience"

, as such, to nonempirical knowledge. A priori justification then refers to a justification that is not dependent on experience, that is either known to be so (as in the case of an axiom) or that has a reason not related to direct personal experience.

In order to properly suggest the difference between the a priori and a posteriori justification, it is best to give out some examples. As such, "examples of a posteriori justification include many ordinary perceptual, memorial, and introspective beliefs, as well as belief in many of the claims of the natural sciences" and may include things like the neuronal cells are not regenerating, cloud may lead to rain or Christopher….

anti-Realism (or constructive realism) of van Fraasen. He divides his essay into three sections:
An explanation of van Fraasen's attempt to demolish scientific realism

His insistence that van Fraasen succeeds no better than his predecessors in answering a major objection to antirealism

The link between realism and explanation and van Fraasen's attempt to sever that link.

An explanation of van Fraasen's attempt to demolish scientific realism

According to Van Frassen, realism can be defined in the following way: "Science aims to give us, in its theories, a literally true story of what the world is like, and acceptance of the scientific theory involves the belief that it is true." (1088).

Van Fraasen does not go to the extreme, as some do, of rejecting science absolutely. He accepts that scientific statements have a truth value of being true or false. At the same time, however, he rejects the positivist stance where experience is discounted if not….

Different people analyze different situations differently and reach to different conclusions. In supporting his idea he further argued that the senses should not be trusted because people get fooled by their sense. This is due to the reason that many variables affect a person's way of looking and perceiving an event. That's why different people experience same event in different ways.
I do agree with Descartes on this point but at the same time it is also true that majority of the people look at a particular situation in a similar way and reach to similar accurate conclusions. For instance, considering the example of road accident again, if 20 persons watch an accident then majority of them can point out who was responsible for the accident. All of these people view same situation from their own perspective but reach to almost similar conclusion. Therefore it cannot be said that the….

Skepticism is defined as a school of philosophical thought where a person doubts the beliefs of another person or group. hile one person might believe wholeheartedly a certain political perspective or believe completely the dogma of a religion, a skeptic would have doubts about these beliefs or about the stories related to religion. Not only do they doubt organized religion, they also doubt the validity of socially constructed morals and laws. Sometimes they doubt the world as they witness it because they are unsure of the truth of reality as they perceive it through the senses (Butchvarov 1998). Like many philosophies, skepticism has origins in Ancient Greece. Pyrrho of Elis is credited with founding the philosophy, a branch of which was later named Pyrrhonism in his honor. The philosophy was expanded into countries throughout the known world, up to and including the early modern world. During the Enlightenment, skepticism branched….

Hume and Experience
In morals, politics, religion and science, Hume was a conservative empiricist who emphatically rejected all theories he thought of as metaphysical or not based on actual experience and sense perceptions. He did not regard religious and metaphysical theories as scientific, but more like idle speculation, superstition and prejudice. No ultimate original principles existed outside of the mind and perceptions, and this certainly included the concept of cause and effect, which he insisted was derived from the senses and later processed through the mind in the form of simple and complex ideas. Nothing could be known about human nature or any other subject outside of an exact, empirical science, while innate and a priori ideas did not exist. Even his theories of mathematics, logic and the color spectrum were all based on empiricism, and the ability of the mind to reflect, compile and make connections based on repeated sense….

philosopher Rene Descartes can be regarded as the supreme rationalist. Descartes believed that only through our rational minds could we fully know God and find evidence of God. Empirical knowledge was not sufficient justification to prove the existence of God because our senses could delude us or be faulty (such as through madness or blindness). In contrast, through rational inquiry we could first demonstrate our own existence on a mental plane: even if all is a delusion regarding the body there must be some 'mind' doing the thinking, rationalized Descartes. And, as the human mind can conceive of a greater intelligence known as God, a level of perfection human beings cannot approach, then within the very structure of our mind lies the evidence of God.
David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, however, takes the opposite, empiricist point-of-view. In the dialogue, three figures known as Demea, Cleanthes, and Philo engage in….

5. Kant's "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy is in his genius use of the positive aspects of Rationalism (Descartes and so on) and Empiricism (Locke, Berkeley and Hume). How can you argue this out with the help of the "Critique of Pure Reason"?

The human experience of negotiating the universe as it seems to be presented to us is one governed by a great many assumptions. Our education of this process, and in particular our capacity to become adept or even talented in various faculties thereto, is created by experience. In experience, we gain the evolving abilities to relate to objects which we can perceive in our world. However, in order to accomplish this, there are any number of beliefs which must be possessed in us that will create a framework wherein such relating can occur. These beliefs -- and the practical, ideological and physiological experiences which are dependent upon them --….

1. The Essence of Thomas Aquinas's Natural Law Theory: An Exploration of Its Foundations and Implications

Discuss the metaphysical and ethical principles that underpin Aquinas's natural law theory.
Analyze the concept of the eternal law and its relationship to the natural law.
Examine the role of human reason in discerning the precepts of natural law and their binding force.

2. The Harmony of Faith and Reason in Aquinas's Summa Theologica: A Critical Examination

Trace the development of Aquinas's understanding of the relationship between faith and reason.
Explore the arguments Aquinas presents for the compatibility of faith and reason.
Evaluate the strengths....

Thesis Statement:

The Evolution of Scientific Inquiry: A Historical Perspective on the Transformation of Epistemological Paradigms and Methodological Approaches

Introduction:

Science, an ever-evolving pursuit of knowledge, has witnessed a remarkable transformation over time. From its rudimentary beginnings to its current sophistication, the scientific method has undergone profound shifts in its epistemological foundations and methodological approaches. This thesis explores the historical trajectory of science, examining how its paradigms and practices have evolved to shape our understanding of the natural world.

Part 1: The Roots of Modern Science: The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment

During the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, a pivotal shift occurred....

Are Scientific Revolutions Necessarily Irrational?

The scientific revolution, a period of drastic scientific change and innovation beginning in the 16th century, is often characterized as a triumph of rationality. However, the nature of scientific revolutions has been subject to debate, with some scholars arguing that they may involve elements of irrationality.

Rationality in Scientific Revolutions

The traditional view of scientific revolutions emphasizes the role of reason and empirical evidence. According to this perspective, scientists challenge existing theories and propose new ones based on careful observation and experimentation. This process is seen as a rational pursuit of knowledge, where new ideas are accepted based....