Please respond to two of the following questions.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
ReplyDeleteThe natural sciences is a branch of science that deals with the physical world; physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. Human science is the study and interpretation of the experiences, activities, and constructs, and artifacts associated with human beings. In natural sciences, a hypothesis is verified by experiment- the human sciences cannot experiment. The natural sciences can repeat experiments in order to verify their hypotheses, and can generalize their results. Unlike physical scientists, human scientists can almost never use controlled experiments to gather facts with which to test theories. They must use whatever facts the world gives them and rely on statistical procedures to draw conclusions. In the natural sciences, phenomena may be studied without regard to their past. In conclusion, natural sciences focuses on the study of nature and involves experiments and theories where as human sciences is more about behavior, and is more abstract.The human sciences and natural sciences overlap due to technology:how we create it belongs in the former, how we use it, the latter. To follow up on the last question, human sciences are based off of theories whereas natural sciences are based off of scientific evidence. Therefore, Human science can be considered not trustworthy and less "scientific".
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteThe natural sciences remain an extremely creative branch of science, as the establishment of an experiment can be seen as a form of artistry. Because the natural sciences encompass a wide branch of knowledge, that deals with the study of the physical world, art can be parallel to the sciences quite easily. An artist creates paintings and sketches with influence of nature and life. Similarly, a biologist and geologist view at the world around him or her and asks questions by observing rocks or organisms. Furthermore, a scientist's creation of a testable hypothesis and research is comparable to a work of art because both professions use materials, and experience errors until they achieve their final product or conclusion.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
The two main knowledge systems beyond scientific investigation are the varying ethical values humans hold, as well as religious issues such as faith and supernatural forces. These knowledge systems will most likely always elude scientific treatment because they are outside the scope of science. Ethics and morality encompass a huge part of human beings identity, but we can never truly test why someone might feel it is right to commit a crime or not because these ideas are abstract. Similarly faith or the feeling of supernatural presence is something completely thought based and thus we will never know why some people feel this force. However, scientific investigation is furthered everyday and we may eventually understand these theoretical concepts in the future.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude to effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThough the natural sciences will most likely be fully proven, due to the nature of human life to discover why the world is the way it is, there will still be some areas of study that cannot be fully verified. Religion is one because it contradicts the theory of how the universe came to be and there is not as much evidence behind it which makes it harder to prove. As a part of the human sciences, such areas such as psychology and morality will never be able to be fully investigated due to how it is more personal knowledge than shared knowledge and it is more up to interpretation of the person. Most knowledge usually eludes to scientific treatment because we always want to fix what is broken and what can be treated, so we go back to our main form of treatment, which is science.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear led 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The similarities between human and natural science is the fact that they are both the study of behavior, whether it is human behavior or the behavior of the universe, they both try to prove why something is the way it is. These two fields overlap when it comes to the scientific side of human behavior, such as biology and neuroscience. The two go hand and hand in this instance due to the fact that the natural sciences can prove the logical side of why humans act the way they do. Human sciences always appear to be less 'scientific' because it is more complex due to the fact that it is not as straight forward and it does not follow the mathematical equations and expressions that the natural sciences abide by. Psychology, for example, is seen less scientific than psychiatry because it is not as mathematical based. The study of the universe, natural sciences, is seen as more scientific because when we think about what subjects fall under 'scientific' the natural sciences tend to come in mind first. I think the human sciences are just as scientific as the natural sciences, but not in the normal way we think of science.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteWhile science can be used to answer almost everything in our universe, there are certain aspects of it that remain beyond the capabilities of science to verify. For example, religion is often regarded as outside the scope of science. We have no way of verifying the validity of religion and the religious texts and practices that accompany them. Faith cannot be verified through experiment. For this reason, much conflict has arisen due to religion. This knowledge will always elude effective scientific treatment because we don’t have the physical capabilities of proving the metaphysical.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Ultimately, there are two main branches of science: natural science and human science. Natural sciences focus on the physical world while human sciences focus on the experiences and artifacts of humans. Both natural and human science rely on experimental results. However, claims in natural science are proved through quantitative data. On the other hand, claims in human science are proved through quantitative data. Most of the time, natural science and human science do not overlap. However, they do in fact overlap when investigating the science of human behavior in the brain. Often times this is associated with medicine, psychiatry, and certain branches of anthropology. Human sciences are largely regarded as less ‘scientific’ because their subject matter is less complex. This is not necessarily true. Natural sciences are rooted in mathematics and while making it difficult, it also makes in concrete. Human sciences are far less concrete and therefore very difficult to validate some claims. Overall, the natural sciences and human sciences have the same basic principles but have varying and complex experimental procedures.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is vital in the sciences because it is what drives new discoveries and ideas. One must have creativity in order to create an original hypothesis because they must be capable of viewing the universe in a unique way that would lead to new discoveries and perspectives of the world. The research method also requires creativity because one must create an experiment that fulfills requirements to give it validity and effectively tests the hypothesis. Thus, science is comparable to work of art in that it can express individual creativity and originality while pushing the boundaries of human thought and knowledge. However, art generally depicts and reflects upon human and individual experiences and thoughts while natural sciences are used to describe the universe and the systems within the universe.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Natural sciences are generally oriented around the universe and systems within the universe, while human sciences are oriented around human experiences and creations. The fields both include humans as a subject but human sciences explore matters of the human mind while the natural sciences examine bodily systems or the place of humans within a larger system. Human sciences may appear less scientific because they are more open to interpretation and often do not use the scientific method, such as in the fields of literature and history, where the natural sciences rely on the scientific method for validity. However, the human sciences allow for more reflection and insight on true human experiences and ideologies that the natural sciences cannot provide. Because the human sciences can be objective and lead to new discoveries, they are scientific. They simply have less guidelines, which makes them appear less scientific than the natural sciences. The human sciences just deal with different information and areas of study that do not conform to the scientific method.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity plays a large and important role in the sciences as new ideas and branches of the sciences can be formed into to many more branches and so on. The role that creativity plays in the sciences is endless because of the incredible amount of possibilities and all of the unknown features of sciences is endless. Everyday we find new branches of sciences and can even create some new ones as we go. The extent that the creation of a hypothesis or a research method is comparable to the creation of a work of art is very valid. Someone may look at something in our habitat and have an instinct or feeling that a science could lie behind why or what that something is. The same could occur with a painter, who could look at something that caught their eye and really question and wonder what that something is and have a desire to paint that something.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
There is knowledge behind the sciences because through observation and experiments can define whether or not a science is really a science or not. The sciences will always elude to effective scientific treatment because it can help us define whether or not a science is really a science. The knowledge and background is simple, if you can conduct experiments to test the sciences and use them, it may be easier to define something as a science.
1. Creativity is an essential role in the sciences because without creativity, the ability to discover new concepts and aspects of life would be hindered. Wrapping your brain around concepts from sciences like chemistry, biology, and physics requires creativity. Picturing the world as we know it as being composed of electrical charges and cells and combined forces is not realistic thinking. You must be able to imagine the unimaginable. From this, new things can be discovered. I don’t think researching hypotheses with science is similar to creating a piece of art because science is based on real facts of our world.
ReplyDelete2. I don’t think knowledge is just stuff you learn that is accepted as fact and applicable directly to our physical world, as is science. I think knowledge is a culmination of these factual based understandings but also philosophical ideas. Although these may seem determinedly not science based, current research has revealed the correlation with thoughts and the science of our brain, however I do not think everything can be base off of facts and scientific reasoning.
1.What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is definitely present in sciences because it requires a different look on someone or something in order to observe it and process it to then create a question/ hypothesize to further the experiment. Creativity is also necessary to accept when something does not work out well in the first experiment and re think the hypothesis and start all over. This need for different perspectives on something in order to have a better conclusion requires a great deal of creativity, which is why the creation of a hypothesis and research method can be comparable to to the creation of a work of art. Art requires the need for hypothesis on how the image planned out in one’s head will look like once the process of drawing begins. In addition, the constant revision of a piece to better it is also the same with a scientific experiments. Scientists are also forced to see how an organism relates to something on Earth or how the affect of something can result in changing to something or someone. This needs creativity which is also found in a work of art. At times an artist needs to creatively try and see how two things work together and how one thing affects another.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Some knowledge like religious beliefs will always be outside the scope of scientific investigation because one cannot verify the existence or lack of when it comes to God. This is also present in other ethical issues which again, cannot be verified not investigated because many factors plays in the individual's belief. These knowledges cannot be better understood in scientific manner and thus eludes to effective scientific treatment. These knowledges very from other scientific knowledges because it is up to every individual to make their own principles which governs that individual or a group.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
ReplyDeleteNatural Sciences have to do more with the studying of things around us in the world. Some examples of natural sciences are Chemistry, Geology, or Physics. Human sciences have to do more with the studies of humans and their behaviors, such as psychology and all that.I think People can say that human studies are less scientific because they find their evidence harder to prove. If someone does not believe in mental illness then they are less likely to consider human sciences real science. This has a lot to do with the fact i think that its hard to prove people's emotions, however conditions such as depression and bi-polar disorders, which i consider being part of human sciences, are not actual emotions but true chemical conditions that are off within people's bodies. In this way the sciences can seem to overlap and can help explain areas with in each type of science.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Knowledge such as faith can not be proven by science and therefore fall outside of the categories of both Natural sciences and Human sciences. Religion more specifically can not be proven to be true be science however, with human sciences it can explain as to why people have certain faiths but the sciences may never be able to prove faith to be accurate. Religion is more up to the person, many people can believe that God cured them of a sickness, and if they truly believe this it will become accurate knowledge to them, even if science does not consider it so.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is the creation of original ideas from owns thought or imagination, so the role of creativity in the sciences is to explore questions that has not been answered. Hypothesis is an explanation of a circumstance. Work of art is a creative product with strong imaginative. The formation of a hypothesis requires prior knowledge,basic understanding, formalization and questions. Similarly to create a work of art, it requires prior knowledge, basic understand and drawing. Hypothesis requires research and creativity to invent, work of art requires creativity to produce something appealing.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Even Though, Science can explain many things, it does not of the capability to verify religion. Science is heavily based on explaining things through logical steps. Knowledge, such as religion, are difficult to explain because there isn't sufficient information available. Unlike science, religion relies on faith. People who are religious, don't have adequate answers why their religion is the right one, because their explanation to everything is heavily based on their faith in god. Since everyone has different views and opinions on religion, there will never be an agreement to settle the argument.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThe first field of knowledge that come to mine that cnt be explained is religion. For centuries, religion as been a controversial topic among humans, yet will probably never be able to be proven or disproven by science. This is because religion is based on historical events that happens in the BC years. The proof that these things actually happened is hard to deny or prove because the only real historical knowledge we have of it comes from the bible. Also, scientists can't prove what happens after death. This ties back into religion a little bit, as they have their theories about the afterlife, but again, it can't be proven or disproven.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Well, creativity is a basis of science. It's what can start the thought process of "what happens when" or "why does _______ happen?" Creativity lets scientists make the elaborate or simple tests they use to explain the world around them. It's a lot like art in the sence that you are creating something. The tests, more so then the hypothesis, that scientists create can be really creative and artistic, depending on what they are trying to do. The creation of a hypothesis must be planned, tested, retested, replanned, retested, etc... Until it cannot be denied by anyone. A perfect hypothesis takes as long to make as a perfect painting.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is a large aspect of of the different types of sciences. New scientific ideas are created by combining thoughts, stirring memories, perceiving sensations,and producing original products. One has to be creative to think outside the box and go further than what is already known about the world around us. The creation of a hypothesis has similar building blocks to those of an art piece. Both a scientist and an artist have to come up with an idea or an inspiration and it usually takes multiple times to come to a final product. A hypothesis and art both take a lot of precision and time commitment to be successful. Overall I think there is a noticeable comparison between creativity/art with science.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Human science is the study and interpretation of the experiences, activities, constructs, and artifacts associated with human beings. Natural Science is a branch of science that deals with the physical world, e.g., physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. Natural sciences have more to do with experiment and logic where as human science focuses more on behavior. They are both used to explain why something is the way it is. Human sciences can be referred to as less scientific because where natural sciences are math based and more factual human sciences are more abstract and complex. For an example anthropology and psychology are known to be less scientific than biology and physics.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThere are many knowledges that will remain beyond the capabilities of science. One example could be certain sections of history. During times where history was passed down through a series of storytellers and nothing was legitimately recorded, historical knowledge is lacking of events and people. A more timely area of knowledge could be P vs Np computational theory. Many problems (typically mathematical but also scientific) are so complex, i.e. protein folding, cancer, chess, cannot be solved simply due to the number of choices. Data scientists are limited to the amount of bits that computers contain today. What science cannot do is verify that these NP problems can be classified as P, or simple, problems. If it can, please notify someone because then scientists could possibly cure cancer, since NP problems seem to be all related in some way. Also, faith can not be verified. This is a classic argument, where the existence of god cannot be proved or disproven.
Faith
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Human sciences are studies of the human brain and behavior, whereas natural science is the study of the universe. Similarities include the value they contribute to society, the prestige of each as a career, and the magnitude of the complexity of science in general. Differences include methods or experiments conducted in both areas, the data that can be recorded from each, the tangibility of the results, and the amount of schooling needed. These fields overlap in that behavior can be classified into biology, and the fundamentals of the human brain can also be classified into biology. If a Venn diagram were to be created, the overlap would be the majority of subsections in both sections. Human sciences appear less scientific because of the tangibility of the results. There are many more assumptions made in human sciences in comparison to natural sciences. This is because many concepts in natural sciences are fairly simple to prove, whereas human sciences are typically impossible to prove in a scientific way, experimentation.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is critical in science because it is important for one to think outside the box. Being creative allows us to invent new ideas and methods in tackling important questions. Someone who is terribly unimaginative is likely rigid and inflexible, which aren't good qualities for a field of study so unpredictable. It's like a work of art for imaginative scientist because it illustrates their uniqueness and individuality. No one has ever heard of the scientist who just follows the book, while the geniuses are famous throughout the ages. Pablo Picasso has been gone for 40 years now, yet is still as popular as ever. Like Newton and Einstein, his creativity in the pioneering of groundbreaking work has distinguished himself from his peers. None of that would happen however, if they were afraid to be creative and different.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Some knowledge will always lay beyond the grasp of our understanding. To me, there are only some things that a human mind can meaningfully comprehend. What came before the Big Bang to what comes after death, there some things we just can't 100% know. Since the science we know today came from humans, I am confident in the assertion that it can't prove/ know certain things like the creators that made it. Also, most scientist adhere to the scientific method. While I would not call it "narrow", to say that it can prove literally everything in existence, is a preposterous statement.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteThe role of creativity in the sciences is to spark new discoveries and to work around existing problems. If creativity did not exist in the sciences, no one would be willing to try new methods, medicines, or procedures in order to experiment and eventually receive desired results. I believe that the creation of a hypothesis is comparable to a work of art if it is something well thought out and the scientist is truly passionate about it. If the hypothesis/method is well thought out, then the scientist has put curiosity, passion, and care into creating hypotheses or a research method, similarly to how an artist puts emotion into a work of art.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Natural sciences are sciences that exist surrounding nature, including animals (humans). However, these sciences exist whether or not humans are aware of them. Human sciences are sciences that are created by humans, but may exist elsewhere. For instance, astrology. Space of course exists, but the actual study of space is a human concept. These overlap in fields such as math and physics. Principles of math and physics occur everywhere in nature, making them a natural science. At the same time, math and physics are human sciences. It is the observation of these principles, research, and math/physics “language” that count as the human science portion of math or physics. I think it depends on what ‘scientific’ is considered as. In my opinion, the human sciences are more ‘scientific’ because they involve math and formulas. However, I can also see the reason in the other side of the argument, as nature in itself is home to many sciences.
What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteIf any knowledge will remain beyond the capabilities of us as humans it must be the knowledge of what happens to a human after death. Science can only go so far to explain what physically happen to a human after the heart stops pumping blood to the brain and other parts of the body, however no study can solidify a strong thesis that explains what happens to a human's “soul” or whatever you want to call it after they die. This also goes in hand with other religious ideals. Sure, science can prove Jesus himself did exist, however no science can prove that he was the son of God and ‘our savior’. The fact of the matter is these cannot be scientifically proven as they require a sense of belief that quite simply is not in the same realm of knowledge that scientific method is. Belief requires a personal connection to knowledge, often refutes many ideals the science realm suggests.
What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Creativity is essential in the scientific process, as creating hypothesis and experimentation require creativity. Creating a variety of ways to solve problems is a task that is needed in order to succeed in any scientific field. Creation of a hypothesis can be compared to a work of art in the sense that different approaches must be made in order to get to a final product. Both art and hypothesizing require critical thinking and problem solving, often requiring the creator to think outside the box.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteThinking creatively can sometimes be referred as thinking “outside of the box”. This applies to not only art but in science as well. Curiosity and creativity help form the discoveries of new subjects and theories. Often times, the large breakthroughs amaze us because of the complexity and creativity. One must think differently than the rest of society in order to discover something never thought of before. Furthermore, the creation of a hypothesis is comparable to the creation of a work of art on many levels. Both require the common knowledge of basics before building the “art” into something large and impressive. In science, one must know the basics learned in school before applying and furthering the thought. Likewise in art, one must know what brush or paint color to use before creating the masterpiece. From thereon, both use creativity to distinguish themselves from the other works.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
There are many things in the world that can not be answered with only the knowledge and capabilities of science. Religious beliefs and theology are topics that are based off of individual’s faith. How do you prove to someone that their God does or does not exist? This is particularly hard when religion is a sensitive topic to address. Using the scientific method, how does one conduct an experiment or reconstruction to prove God real? There have been many instances by scientists to prove the existence of God, but have not reached a viable conclusion. It is very hard to avoid personal bias when investigating something as controversial as religion and faith.
2. My dad and I have talked a lot about magic since we're really into fantasy stuff. It's his take that magic is just something science can't explain yet. And that makes sense to me. In every fantasy world, magic follows certain rules, the same way anything else in the world does. Just because we don't know where it came from, doesn't mean it's not something around us naturally in the world. In this vein, I think science just has yet to be able to look into certain things. Magic and miracles are still amazing either way, but the sooner science stops dismissing them, the sooner we can look into them to see what we're missing.
ReplyDelete3. We already talked in class about how there's some overlap in their studies. But I don't think human studies appears less scientific because it's "more complex". We might be special, but we aren't that special. Other animals are pretty amazing with their community structures and brain capacity too, we just don't have the resources or the concern to study them as fully. Human sciences are less scientific because of the bias every single study has. We are studying ourselves and we'll bring all that into it. Because so much of it is psychological, we don't know how to explain that away in math. True, there are chemicals going on in the brain that make all the emotions do their thing, but so much is guesswork and opinion still. This is why human sciences become less scientific than natural sciences.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteThe role of creativity in the sciences is generally to challenge theories in an attempt to improve them or create new ones. Creativity and can help formulate new ideas or discoveries that furthers our knowledge in the sciences. A work of art is similar to a new hypothesis or research method in the sense that they can be abstract, critiqued, or many people can perceive them differently. For example, the creation of a hypothesis almost always incites people to challenge or point out its flaws. This especially occurs when a creation is uncommon and controversial, similar to how some works of art are very unique and at issue. On the other hand, some works of art are breathtaking and create a shift in the art world. There have been hypotheses and research methods that were certainly groundbreaking and served as a milestone in the advancement of our knowledge.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
There are many things that will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify such as theology, mythology, cryptozoology, and many more. All of these will always elude effective scientific treatment because they are all hypothetical and require speculation. There is no scientific evidence that support these, and are primarily based upon belief. It is also unlikely that there will ever be scientific proof to verify this knowledge. There is no factual or concrete evidence that can prove or disprove them; it is up to the individual to interpret them and decide what they think is true or not. For example, theology is the study of the nature of God and religious belief. There has never been hard, concrete evidence to prove or disprove that God exists. The opportunity to scientifically investigate if God exists will never occur because it is a belief that has no factual evidence to have only one answer.
2) What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteAnything supernatural couldn’t ever be investigated by science. Hence ‘super’natural, being beyond nature makes it inherently inexplicable by science. However, that operates under the assumption that there is anything truly supernatural. We call phenomenon like ghosts supernatural, but let me postulate several situations: 1) Ghosts do not exist 2) Ghosts do exist 3) Ghosts do not exist but have been experienced. Only the third situation is supernatural, whereas both situation one and two are natural and therefore able to be investigated using the scientific method.
3) What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
If their methodology is different, it is not accurate. The “natural sciences” use the scientific method to categorically, and repeatedly prove or disprove theories about nature. Human sciences like sociology must do the same, or they are not science. For example, if a poll has a crappy sample space, it's going to have crappy-unverifiable inaccurate results. That is no different than poor experimental design under the auspices of the “natural sciences.” Social sciences like anthropology and psychology are of course more based in qualitative analysis than quantitative. In part because it has in so far been extremely difficult to apply quantitative analysis to these fields. However science incorporates both forms of analysis, and without both we would have no understanding of everything from genetics to antibiotics to astronomy. With respect to the idea of human sciences being any more complex, they aren’t. We have very little understanding about psychology, that is not necessarily due to its complexity but rather its lack of uniformity. Emotions are not constant between each human. This is unlike its counterpart in psychiatry, which is able to examine the general chemistry which underlies those emotions. Does it do that job very well? No.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDelete-Many of the most significant scientific discoveries have been based upon creativity. Creativity pushes and inspires us as humans to challenge others theories and hypothesis. While we may not always agree or see eye to eye on a specific subject, we are all individually able to come to our own personal conclusion based upon our own version of creativity. Everyone is creative in one aspect or another. By jiving thoughts and ideas in the field of science, we are able to keep advancing and pushing our limits. Everybody views and perceives art differently. This is comparable to the field of science, where people may have different perspectives and views about certain theories. What one person sees in a piece of art is likely completely different than what another individual will see. This just goes to show how big of a role perception plays in both science and art.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
-While science can be used to explain almost everything in the world around us, there are still countless mysteries that even science fail to verify. These "mysteries" cannot be proven by science because there is no factual evidence that supports that they even exist. For example, religion plays a huge role in society and has for thousands of years. People will literally die for their beliefs in a "God" or superior power. Yet, there is still no concrete evidence that any of it ever even actually occurred! While I myself am personally biased being raised to think in a practical, scientific manner, I still find it hard to believe that people can just ignore hard, scientific facts and evidence and simply choose to take part in a belief system that likely has no proof or background to support it.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteThe role of creativity in science allows people to think outside the box. This then leads people to create a hypothesis based on what they think is true. The creation of the hypothesis is art because it is made up of someones own thoughts. The hypothesis could be looked at just like a piece of canvas for a painting someone applied their own creative ideas to. At the beginning of making a painting the artist must first have an idea of what they are going to paint then paints the painting. The hypothesis is the out line or idea that they are going to try and prove, the research is the work on the painting.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The similarities in the human and natural sciences is that both sciences are used to explain the world and why things happen in certain ways. Both sciences explain physical and biological reasons. Human science is specific to the human race and why humans act the way they do what are we made of why are people different. The natural sciences explains why things outside of human control act the way the they do and why. It would not be true to say that human science is less scientific because the subject matter is more complex. The Human science is of equal significance but because it is hard and complex to understand there is not as much Scientific evidence.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteI think the role of creativity in science is great. I mean when you think about it in order to invent and find new things/creations you had to come up with the idea of it. So isn't that a type of creativity? To make up new ideas and hypothesis you have to be creative, to be able to word and try to translate your ideas from your head to paper, or actual individuals and audiences. It can totally be compared to art. It can be compared to art because, these people or just person, spent (probably) a large amount of time on this project, trying to gather up information and evidence.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
I think there is some knowledge out there that can't be investigated or verified. For example, Religion, a large sum of people have careers and have studied all different types of religions so you can say they are knowledgeable, and they do have some creditability to what they have to say. I think it will always elude since because science is so technical and when it comes to subjects about religion there is just some things science cannot explain.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteSimilar to when creating a hypothesis in an experiment, art also follows this same idea of creating/discovering something new to the people of the world. When beginning any experiment, beside having an observation on a certain idea or thing to start, everyone creates a hypothesis in which the observer/researcher can base their research on. Same goes for art, when a painter or sculptor think about their next work they plan ahead of time, for the most part, of their work will be on. When entering further into the research of an experiment, the data taken from observation begins to show a pattern, or form if I may say in which gives the experiment more depth, and completion. In a painting one single stroke with the brush is not much to base our predictions of what the artwork will look like or what it is supposed to be about, until the picture begins to take form, and the painting continues to be filled in. The creativity that both branches of knowledge expressed are unique, but at the same time quite similar. Both encourage people to create new ideas for the world, and people around to see their work, and how their work represents their emotions and thoughts, especially in some works of art. Both as well encourage people in these fields to strive for creativity, similar to when creating a hypothesis in an experiment, or a work of art whether it be a painting or sculpture.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
How I see it, but I may be wrong it that natural sciences encompasses human sciences because natural sciences don’t depend human sciences, but human sciences do depend on natural sciences. What I am trying to say is that human sciences depend on humans, but natural sciences still can go on without humans present in this world. Human sciences are dependent on human thought, and ideas about the world and the interactions we have with it on a daily basis. Natural sciences on the other hand do not only encompass humans and their behavior, but the world around. Those are the major differences that I see with these two forms of sciences, but the major similarity between the two is that they have humans present in each science, but they are not necessary for natural science. What we deem less scientific we associate as less complex or easy, but most of the time that is not the case. Physics may be more scientific, but for some they may have a stable understanding of the subject. Less scientific questions such as why do humans prefer different colors may be more complex than a physics problem even though it has no math involved in it. The overall idea of trying to understand human thought and the mind has been and is a mystery for us. It is complex, but a math equation won’t solve this enigma of a tool for the human.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteScience relies heavily on creativity mainly when creating an idea to investigate. It requires the scientist to look at something and ask “why or how does that work?” This also means that the scientist must use previous data or observations to create a possible solution or answer. This possible answer is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis requires the scientist to think something that has never been thought before, something that requires a lot of creativity. In addition to this, the hypothesis is, in a way, a work of art in the way that it is crafted. It is a compilation of past knowledge but in a completely new way. Each hypothesis is revolutionary, bringing a new idea to the world.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Many human interactions or thoughts will always remain outside of the capability of science to investigate, mostly because they can be deemed ethically wrong or dangerous. For instance, it would be terrific to see how people from our society would react if dislocated to a deserted island with no communication to the outside world; however, leaving a bunch of people alone on an island without any sort of survival gear just to see what human nature truly is outside of the confines of society could lead to many problems. Even if each person agreed that they would be in this study, that could cause a discrepancy in the fact that if they are aware of their situation they will react differently to it. In addition to this, with current scientific abilities it is impossible to investigate things such as black holes or deep space. I currently do not believe that science will ever be able to explore the entire galaxy. Even in Star Trek, one of the most imaginative TV shows about space, the writers could not imagine a world in which the whole galaxy had been explored by humans; it remained an ever present dream.
#1 comin up with a hypothesis an creating art are similar in some ways. They both take skill an practice. As well as being creative enough to understand what they want an how they want to get it. Scientist use words to come up with something while art use a varied of things to ask question.
ReplyDelete#2 Yes there is some subjects that will never be fully proven or disproven by sience. Due too the studying of it being not understood, or not enough funding for it, too many factors, an limits of the technology. Plus there is litterally to many things to study and prove in the universe
1) I think the role of creativity in science really depends on the kind of people working on an experiment together. Depending on how their minds work together, or separately, can affect how their experiment's results turn out. Coming up with a hypothesis makes scientists think new thoughts that haven't been in their heads before.
ReplyDelete2)There are quite a lot of ideas and subjects outside of the capabilities of science. We can't always look at them because we often don't know they're there. There are too many limitin factors to some experiments, and there's no way to contain them. Some ideas and experiments are best left untouched by the hands of science, and that is a good thing.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity plays an immense role in science as it leads to new ideas and areas of exploration. Science is primarily based on exploring every inch of the world we know and if we did not go about this exploration in different ways, we would not know as much as we do about the world. The creation of a hypothesis or research method is comparable to the creation of a work of art in that it expresses the creator’s interpretations of the world and is the process of the creator’s exploration of a certain subject.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Though science can investigate and explore nearly everything in the universe and in ourselves from the stars to even the explanation for the emotions we feel, there are some areas that even science cannot cover. The most obvious answers to this are religion and faith as they are the two main aspects that conflict with science. There is no way of scientifically verifying the validity of religion, as the description of faith suggests. Faith disregards reason in that it is something one cannot prove, but believes strongly in. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that religions are real, but nonetheless it prevails due to strong beliefs and long-lasting practice.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteI think creativity is a huge role both in the discovery process and the physical sense. Without the complex and creative sciences still to be discovered, there would be nobody to discover these new ideas and researches. However, I do not think that you can compare the creative sense of the natural sciences with the hypothesis and research method to that of art. The creative process of Science pertains only to what is of existence and reality, while art can be expressed in ways that do not pertain to the real world and what is around us. However, yes there are parts of both natural science and art that can be compared, but overall I do not think they are comparable.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
I think that the knowledge that we will never be able to fully understand will be that of our own senses. Because we cannot describe the exact feelings from one person to another and some may experience the same feeling in a different way, but either way since we lack this ability I feel that we will never be able to investigate nor verify our emotions/feelings. However there is the thought that if we can develop the technology or some way to transfer how someone is feeling to another person, then we will be able to verify this knowledge.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is essential in the sciences because without it there would be no hypotheses. The people conducting the experiment need creativity to solve the problem or think of the situation differently. Creativity will help the scientist act in a more efficient way or help them think of a different way to go about the experiment. The hypothesis of an experiment requires thought and knowledge of the experiment itself. The formation of the hypothesis is artful in the way that it requires creativity and alternate view points. Each person develops their own personal hypothesis based on their prior experiences and thoughts much like other forms of art.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The human sciences and natural sciences share similarities in the methods used in experiments and studies. Both sciences require hypotheses or focused areas of studies. However the natural sciences might require more research or testing since its not always consistent. Most human sciences require volunteers or human subjects which can cause difficulty when trying to conduct an experiment. The two fields to overlap quite a lot since humans are considered part of nature. A human study could be called a natural science but natural sciences can not always be human sciences since natural sciences relate to plants and other creatures as well. Human sciences are often called less scientific since most human sciences studies focus on the brain or thoughts of humans. This is more difficult to study and do experiments on. Natural sciences use experiments and use math most of the time which can be deemed more scientific.
Please respond to two of the following questions.
ReplyDelete1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Creativity in science allows the scientist to formulate new ideas, theories, and hypotheses thats are revolutionary or unheard of. If it werent for creativity newton would never have investigated the laws of physics. A hypothesis is similar to a piece of art as they both require creativity and allow the artist to freely manipulate their art until it is complete, changing certain variables or methods that produce different outcomes.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Natural sciences and human sciences are different in many ways, but both sciences study the natural occurences in the behavior of certain subjects. For human sciences its the behavior of human beings in different situations while natural science observes the other natural occurences in the world without human involvement. They tend to overlap in terms of the humans natural aspects and affinity for the world. For example with biology, anatomy, anthropology, ect. that study the natural aspects of humans while also delving into cultural aspects. Human sciences seem less "scientific" because they tend to involve a lot of intangible data that is more or less theoretical than a large majority of natural sciences.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThe knowledge of religion will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify. It eludes effective scientific treatment because it stems from faith. Religion is not something that actually is proven but rather is believed in. Religion does not go through a set of steps to verify its existence or truths the same way science does. Religion can in many ways overrides scientific values and discoveries if one does not accept the reality of what is scientifically proven. Thus religion will always be an area where the capabilities of science to investigate or verify will fail to prove.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The natural and human sciences both use a systematic investigation of the subject matter, point of view, explanatory principles, and basic concepts of a discipline. They both overlap when it talks about sciences relating to how we think and human behavior. The natural sciences in conjunction with human sciences are able to explain with logic why humans act in the ways that they do such as the contrast between neurology and psychology. This distinction shows the more scientific understanding of a sciences from the more behavioral science. The human sciences to an extent seem less scientific while being more complex due to the fact that there is no one equation to solving a problem. One can not find a definite way to explore the human behavior with a mathematical approach.
1. Without creativity or curiosity, some of the discoveries we have made in science would have never been discovered. Creativity sparks an interest in the unknown or why things work how they do. The creation of a hypothesis is much like the creation of a work of art, just with a different focus area. Artists often think about what they want to create before going to the canvas, and that is similar to a scientist’s observation. Applying that observation or idea is taking the brush to the canvas or coming up with a hypothesis to test out. One will never know the outcome if a situation if it is never tested.
ReplyDelete2. Some things will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate and verify. An easy example of this would be life after death or some type of “heaven” or “hell”. No one is able to come back from the dead and retell their experience, therefore we will never know what it is like to die until it happens to us. There can never be a trial or experiment to prove something such as this.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteI have thought about this question a lot. I love science and understanding the laws and principles that predict how things will behave within our universe, but am also very fascinated with how things came to be the way that they are. My curiosity often results in me contemplating the creation of our universe and of humans. Science can be used to explain our current world as we know it. It can answer questions for us that can allow us to manipulate the natural resources into valuable tools. Science however cannot explain the origin of all things. The origin of our universe is something that people have been trying to explain since the beginning of time. It is often explained by religion or other faith based beliefs. In our society, we only truly believe things as viable once they have been scientifically proven and since the origin of the universe cannot be scientifically proven, we do not yet have an answer for it.
What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Creativity is extremely important in science. Creative thinking is often what allows one to discover a new scientific principle. For example, lets examine the historical argument about whether or not the earth is round. Since the earth is so big, humans see it as if it is a flat plane. In order for someone to even propose the idea that the earth was round, it took creative and out of the box thinking. Often times in order to discover something scientifically new, one must disregard facts that are already accepted by many scientists or society in general. Since it can be very hard to stand alone in support of a claim, it takes a combination of creative thinking as well as determination to support your own hypothesis. Furthermore, what science does not yet explain, we do not yet understand. In order to initially make the steps to understand something that is not understood by any, creativity is vital. Creativity in science however is quite different than creativity in art. Creativity in art means creating a stylistically or physically unique work, while in science creativity is used to grasp for an understanding of something that is not yet understood.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that comes to mind would be black holes, although we do know they exist, and we have been able to detect them within our solar system, they are far too dangerous and unpredictable to study closely to get a better look black holes and better understand how they work and how they originate
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Scientists have to be creative in order to ponder new ideas and invent new things, without creativity in the sciences, scientific breakthroughs would not be a thing. A hypothesis or research method is comparable to a work of art in the sense that it took alot of time, effort, and skill. While art work usually portrays emotion, or a story, or a scenario.
1. The design of experiments and even the decisions on what to study are largely based on creativity. The complex problems presented by most experimental sciences require a great deal of creative thinking to solve. Entirely new methods or techniques may be required for particularly complicated studies, and for these a corresponding amount of creativity is necessary. Additionally, simply finding and deciding on the criteria or aspects of an issue worth investigating necessitates creative thinking. Without it, scientists would continue to study the same topics without any ingenuity or diversity in terms of approach. I do not, however, think that experiment design is at all comparable to the creation of a work of art. Unless it is designed to fit into a particular genre, art is independent of guidelines or a set purpose. Experiment, on the other hand, is always for the same purpose--to obtain knowledge--and generally follows a concrete set of guidelines, i.e. the scientific method and requirements for the integrity of the study.
ReplyDelete3. Both the natural sciences and the human sciences utilize the scientific method to obtain accurate data. In the natural sciences, this data is more often than not quantitative so that it can be processed to reach conclusions. Hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of these data points must be obtained reliably before they can be considered significant or accurate. The human sciences, on the other hand, rely much more on quantitative data, which is subject to the observational skills of the scientist or researcher. Additionally, the human sciences use considerably less data, choosing to focus on the changes of a few subjects over time rather than many subjects at the same instant. There really is no clear divide between the natural and human sciences. The previously noted characteristics are not definitive, but simply a noteworthy trend. The methods and subjects of the human and nature sciences could certainly collaborate or borrow from one another, especially in the case of interdisciplinary studies. The human sciences might indeed seem less scientific than the natural sciences, but they utilize the scientific to the same extent and receive similarly accurate results. The human sciences are based on quantitative data because there are often too many variables to conceivably quantify within a given study.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity in the world of sciences is enormous because you can open your mind and able to think even of the impossible and still try to make it possible. Now to make it possible maybe very hard but trying is what counts right? A hypothesis is very important to any experiment and it s essential because it states your purpose in a way. In the hypothesis you can say what you believe will happen but to actually do the experiment and get something else does not mean you are wrong you just did something different to what you would believe what you would do.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The similarities between the human and natural sciences are then humans are natural human beings, we are made out of cells and we have to depend of other thing in order to survive. We are like flowers we need the sun and water and certain types of vitamins to be able to survive. Certain subjects overlap because there are similar concepts just like economics overlaps with history because as we have seen past economic crisis we don't want that again so we try and avoid what was done in the past so it doesn't occur again.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity plays an important role in the sciences as the foundation of scientific research and the basis for using scientific data in order to solve problems. In the sciences, the term ingenuity is more commonly used than creativity, but ultimately means the same thing. When scientists create a hypothesis or research method, they draw upon other scientists and findings for influence, but must create their own work. In the sciences, replication is more important than it is in the arts (verifying studies holds more importance than replicating the same painting over and over again), but the two processes are also comparable in that replication does play a significant role. Scientists who study the same phenomena can be compared to two artists drawing the same subject. The final product (the data or the piece of art) will most likely be unique (even in science data is seldom exactly the same). New hypotheses and research methods are are similar to art in that they draw extensively upon creativity, and are unique.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
Science will always be limited by tools. It is unlikely that scientists will ever be able to draw observations while looking at an overwhelming amount of data; for example looking at data for every star in the sky. If scientists ever achieve a tool that powerful, it is far in the future. This knowledge will elude scientists because sheer magnitude makes hypothesis impossible to completely verified.
1. Creativity drives all new discoveries. To invent something, one must create something that was not already there. The sciences are no different. There are questions that are unknown, and scientists must create answers by trying new things that people have not done before. They often have limited resources, so they have to think creatively to maximize returns or use approaches that are not obvious. There is an art to science, and both art and science aim to explore and explain the world around us.
ReplyDelete2. While science can explain the intangible--like quantum stuff such as atoms or the concept of magnetic and electric fields--it really can't explain all of humanity's questions. What is the meaning of life? Is there life after death? Although, if we had asked someone to explain an atom a thousand years ago, he wouldn't be able to even start. Who is to say what we will be able to answer in another thousand years. Nothing we know is really right. Our knowledge will always continue to grow. (Unless Idiocracy really happens, which seems to be the case.)
1. Without creativity we would never make new discoveries or even have the desire to make them in the first place. When approaching a new area of research scientists must be creative to find the best and simplest ways to answer our world's most difficult and important questions. It also takes creativity for scientists to ask those questions in the first place. If it wasn't for creativity scientists would also be unable to come up with their own, unique hypotheses which is an essential part of the scientific process. The creation of a hypothesis requires one to be in touch with their own thoughts and experience similar to when an artist searches for muse before beginning a painting.
ReplyDelete2. Oe major thing that science will never be capable of investigating or verifying is the existence of God or an afterlife. Religion is purely based on human belief and cannot be verified with theorems or experiments.
ReplyDelete1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
Without creativity we would lack the motivation and drive to pursue higher knowledge. The majority of recent scientific discovery has resulted from either a necessity to survive or a curiosity about the way the world works. This drive to know more has led us to investigate simple everyday things, such as the way things fall or how fast they move, and this has led us to have the information we use in creating technology and transportation.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
While we can investigate the brain chemistry behind emotion and why we feel and the science behind psychology, we cannot fully understand emotion without completely forsaking the essence of emotion. Emotion is alive and unpredictable and its beauty is in its ambiguity. To try and understand it completely and break it down in formulas is to break down and belittle who we are. While technically we could work to understand the chemical and biological aspects of emotion, the very definition of what it is inherently tells us not to.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is a necessity in the sciences. In order to test the limits of the universe and explain the unexplained in life, one must be creative enough to come up with the questions and hypotheses to things that have never been questioned before. Creating a hypothesis is similar to creating a work of art in that you are designing something that no one has ever designed before. In this way, people can become just as passionate about science as they can art.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
I believe that both natural and human sciences are equally scientific. They both study subject matter in the the natural universe. Although humans are drastically more unpredictable, a majority of humans follow similar morals and contain similarities in the way the brain works. An overlapping science could be the study of how humans interact with the environment, such as pollution.
2. This one is easy. God. God will always elude science and its advances because the only way to prove that he does not exist is to prove our existence has a purpose that is not god. To find out that we lived in a simulation would just about be the only way to disprove god, but at that point, would the creator of the simulation not be our God? Anyways, this is because any advancement made by science, even that that would contradict what is said in the bible or the quran, can be easily explained away by saying that we were just interpreting the bible wrong in the first place. They automatically become correct again and science is back in the same old rut. But, at that I should state that religion is not necessarily a bad thing, it can be very useful as long as it stands to improve lives and fix those that have been broken.
ReplyDelete1. I think that creativity is absolutely essential in science. Without it we would have no progression and many scientific advances that we can experience and enjoy today, would not exist. Creativity is the reason people stay up at night thinking of different ways to do things. If someone received results they didn't expect on an experiment, maybe they will have the creativity to interpret the data in a different way that might explain their original hypothesis or lead to the answering of an entirely different question. In fact, I would argue that without creativity, we wouldn't even have science at all. Without the ability to creatively think of the answers to the weird phenomenons around you, why would you pursue it at all? that is the question that I ask YOU VT!
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity plays a key role in the sciences, being the keystone in any new discovery. With a few exceptions, any new scientific progress must first start with a question, which is then explored with scientific rigor. This question can only be asked if one is creative enough to invasion it. A hypothesis is comparable to a work of art, both can explore nearly any area of knowledge, but art is much more free, not being held by the limits that science can have.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
In my opinion, there is no knowledge that is "out of bounds" for science. Mankind is inquisitive and curious by nature; as long as there are humans, we will want to discover and understand more regardless of what has already been learned. Thousands of years ago, understanding of the human genetic code, nuclear weapons, or space travel would have been thought of as impossible. Questions that now seem impossible will become common knowledge as time passes.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
ReplyDeleteThe knowledge as to the origins of the naturally occurring elements of science will never be known. For example we can never know for sure the origins of the Earth or anything of those sorts. Because it was so long ago, it can't ever be certain. Also the origin of the moon can't be fully proven. There are many theories to these things yet nothing is for certain. Therefore origins of very old objects cannot be fully verified. It will always elude because of its age, there is very little evidence remaining, it is eroded away due to age.
What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
The main difference between natural sciences and human sciences is the place in which they are occurring. The natural sciences are occurring naturally and would be around without the presence of human beings on Earth. Human sciences involve humans and most wouldn't necessarily be around if it weren't for the presence of humans. There are exceptions such as biology which is a human science and occurs in both nature and humans. I wouldn't say human sciences is any less scientific because it is more complex, all sciences are scientific no matter their complexities
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity is an essential aspect of scientific development and discovery. In order to discover something, you first have to hypothesize and question something which takes creativity. Also the mode in which you approach answering questions takes creativity in order to figure out how to create a revealing experiment. I think it is a different type of creativity than creating a work of art because it does take reason and application of prior knowledge in the science world to base your questions around.
2. What knowledge, if any, will always remain beyond the capabilities of science to investigate or verify? If there is, or can be, such knowledge, why will it always elude effective scientific treatment?
I think that faith is an aspect of knowledge that science will not be able to explore. This is a concept that has been rooted at our society since the beginning of human's ability to critically think and question existence and how we came to be. Answers in the sense of where we came from have been answered through theories such as evolution, however there is an aspect of faith in a higher power that cannot be proved or disproved. This is because faith is something that is personal for everyone and therefore can be different depending on who you are, your experiences in life, and how you view the world.
1. What is the role of creativity in the sciences? To what extent is the creation of a hypothesis or a research method comparable to the creation of a work of art?
ReplyDeleteCreativity in science is paramount to its conceptual being. To want to understand something in science is to have a curiosity about the world around you, and to see it in new and imaginative ways, something that traditionally creative art forms are all about. In order to create a work of art, you have to visualize and see something that could be, not necessarily what is, although you can work with what is present. It requires a leap of imagination and the willingness to make real what necessarily isn't, and figure out what can be, or how something is.
3. What are the similarities and differences in methods in the natural sciences and the human sciences? To what extent do their fields of study overlap? To what extent would it be true to say that the human sciences appear less 'scientific' because their subject matter is more complex?
Similarities between the natural sciences and the human sciences is the idea of trial and error, of analyzing data to come to a conclusion, while the main difference is the subject of what is being studied, be it a natural science like the weather, or a human science like psychology. There are even areas that overlap, such as human anatomy, which is both a study of biology or natural science, and of a human science. The human sciences appear less scientific simply because there is no clear or right answer. They are more complex because human beings intrinsically tend to be complex compared to the subject matter of most of the natural sciences, which can have a clear cut "X leads to Y" while in the human sciences, it can be muddled as "X leads to F, in the circumstance that F has happened after H but not before L".
1. Science is creative in the fact that ones interpretation of something differs slightly or completely from another. Nothing would be theorized today without someones natural curiosity. Future based and bigger thinking are used both in hypothesis and art beginning to show the connection between the two. Anything can be art if you truly devote your time and effort to it and creating something new or something that has been done before with passion whether it be a complex theorem or a hyperrealistic drawing shows the energy put into creating something new to you.
ReplyDelete2. Knowledge in its own mindset is a creation of man to explain the unexplainable. Science was considered magic in the dark ages and now it is fact and simple to explain to us. Its not a matter of something will never come to us its the fact maybe the person to understand it and create that branch doesn't exist yet. Some things cannot be explained today or tomorrow like we still can't comply comprehend black holes. There are theories and hypothesis but our understanding is limited by our time and evolution. Knowledge is not something that stops. Humans stop and are limited by resources and evolution while the answers to the unexplainable become broader. It's time that holds knowledge back not complicated knowledge in itself.