Tuesday, March 10
Posted by KQuinn at 1:29 PM
So one thing that really stood out with the first couple of chapters, thus far is the fact that Kitcher sort of discussed science as neutral or really no "truth" to it. Maybe I am interpreting him wrong, but he seems to explain how people have different believes, or see from different perspectives (discussed in the beginning of Chapter 2), causing science to really depend on the "truth for the society" etc. He also discussed about how can we maintain that what we believe is true when others disagree. This statement really comes back to the type of environment that each individual is accustom to and how they develop "truths" within that environment. I think it might have to do, with the "breaking point" of that person also and how strongly they believe. In science, research may be absurd but if that scientist strongly believes in it, even if many people disagree, then the scientist will still go on with the research, and finding truth behind (example: those darn electric pants). I agree with Kitcher in some aspects, however I think he does repeat some topics, or gives way to many examples, which is helpful but at the same time makes the reading tiresome.