SkepticàChallenge
Alice:
Remember that conversation we had about science and how you claimed for it to be just a odern
religion? ell, I realized that our little debate led to me think more deeply about it, and I ended
up reading about epistemology, the study of acquiring knowledge and how we are able to
differentiate that between truth and falsehood. If you think about it, when we had this conversation
last time, we went in empty-handed, we both don know whatàactually true and whatànot. We
just spoke on what we know is true.
Deb:
I agree! Of course, everyone has the freedom to choose whatever they want to believe. Thinking
back to our previous conversation, I noticed that my reasoning lacked skepticism and it was more
of denial. After watching a video that explained the five characteristics of science denial, my
argument to you about how tested drugs that are considered safe and then later withdrawn, was
based on one of the characteristics called cherry picking.
Alice:
You also mentioned how you believed that the scientific method was a myth, and itàall about
trial and error. While you were right to an extent on that, it was more of trial and error based on
reasoning. Both inductive and deductive reasoning is used when scientists form a conclusion that
is true and logical from a hypothesis and theories. Inductive reasoning is used in the scientific
method, this helps scientists form a proper hypothesis/theory based upon a generalization they
have observed. And once they have come to a logical true conclusion, they use deduction reasoning
to apply their hypothesis to specific situations.
Deb:
When you put it that way, it makes much more sense as to why there is sometimes so much trial
and error but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Now that you mention it, I read about Karl Popper
and falsificationism. Itàa method of science that is distinctive because itàwhere scientists will
begin with a speculation and prediction(s) then proceeds to testing, this process continues until itÊproven wrong. But if the predictions are proved wrong during testing, the speculation made is
falsified and replaced with a new one.
Alice:
Karl Popper? I read about him too. I can see why science now uses both deductive and inductive
reasoning. Popper believed that inductivism was too liberal in distinguishing ïod3cience and
pseudo-science. If scientists were to solely use inductivism, we probably wouldn see nor learn
about the world as we do today. It would just be more of generalizing every theory or hypothesis.
Deb:
The Duhem-Quine thesis in a way showed us that in terms of what is limited within experimental
evidence and how it may not be adequate in determining a choice of theory.
Alice:
Which led to the belief that by gradually gaining scientific knowledge, the progress of science
would be joined by the correct scientific method. Therefore, the given theories have a higher
probability of being true.
Deb:
But that was before Thomas Kuhn, he characterized science with three stages: normal science,
crises, and scientific revolutions. Have you read about the paradigm shift?
Alice:
I found that very interesting, and if you think about it Deb, thatàwhat you ended up doing. You
had an original school of thought with how science worked based on what your prior knowledge,
and now that you have learned all of this new information, your stance and thoughts on science
have shifted!
Deb:
I`glad that we continued this conversation. Not only did we learn more about the science world
and how it works, but we also learned where we stood within the subject. I considered myself an
anti-realist because I was looking at science from experience and sense rather than rationalizing
what the scientific theories can be logically. Alice, you are definitely a realist based on what you
were telling me about what you learned about the Big Bang, and how the table we sat at were made
up of tiny atoms and in reality itàjust an empty space.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment