'Does Science Tells Us the truth Essay\r'

'In the Ameri hobo heritage Dictionary of the English Language, acquaintance has been define as â€Å"the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of innate phenomenon” (Gottlieb, 1997). But can these explanations be equated to legality? through with(predicate) out history, lore has formulateed myriad occurrences in the universe. However, until today, more(prenominal) still questions the validity of scientific knowledge in relation to its equityfulness and the veracity of its claimed virtuefulness. t every(prenominal)y to Gottlied (1997), accomplishment is â€Å"an in ascertainectual activity…designed to discover information”.\r\nThis information is then organized and used to realise a meaningful pattern that can explain graphic phenomenon (Gotltieb, 1997). It is in any subject field said that the main objective of science is to collect facts that discern the â€Å" ordinate that exists mingled with and amongst the various facts” (Gottliedb, 1997). The ability of science to discern and collect facts to give meaningful explanation of the causes and effects of natural phenomena becomes a way of discovering the justness. Without science there would be no discipline to work on these explanations and the integrity will be left undiscovered and globe will be left in the black-market wondering nearly things.\r\nDoes science tells us the truth? Or is it concern with the pursuit of truth? According to Esting (1998), â€Å"scientists must guess that it is moral cowardice to disjoin the practice of science from the pursuit of truth”. This lone(prenominal) means that scientist should use science in hostelry to discover the truth and inform the battalion of what lies laughingstock each scientific all toldy explainable phenomenon. In addition, Esting (1998) also mentioned that the mere fact that science is but a mere creation of men, does non change the office of science, which is the pursuit of truth.\r\nFor example, according to the article, ‘What Is’, versus ‘What Should Be’ (n. d. ), it is mentioned that science is more concerned in explaining the ‘what is’ truth of things, thought it can non ply the facts of the ‘what should’ truth of things. Moreover, the article also stated that â€Å"science knows the truth of record, but only on the sensible side and incorporates technology to explain how to achieve and usher this fact. In order to explain this claim, take the case of pure science principle of the freezing bloom of water.\r\nScience tells us that water freezes when temperature drops to zero degrees Celsius. In this regard, technology then suggests and explains the various ways on how to drop the temperature to zero (‘What Is’ versus ‘What Should be’, n. d. ). Meanwhile, to answer the question, louse up (200) mentioned that the best way t o determine whether or not science tell us the truth is to understand how scientists think and how they arrive at their conclusions. According to him, the man of science is for the discovery and understanding of human nature apart from the fact of existence of men.\r\nIn order to understand the laws of nature, we gather facts and formulate theories to explain every phenomenon. These theories screen to explain why things happen, why things did not happen and why natural results are unavoidable. The results of these queries by the scientists are then published and made cognize to the public for whom the information of the conclusion is intended for. one time these conclusions are released, they became open to scrutiny and other scientists try to prove wrong these findings by conducting their own experiments and entropy gathering; or by modifying these conclusions based on their own findings (Cross, 2000).\r\nWhen scientific findings and conclusiosn remain unchallenged, they becom e the working guidelines for human actions, which then become ‘facts of life’ and the ‘truth’. Because many people trust how science works, science has become their only way to tell the truth and at least explain the truth about things (Cross, 2000). As it is provided by Cross (2000), science â€Å"has been tremendously successful in giving us explanations of the piece around us”. However the explanation as to whether or not science does tells us the truth, lies on the determination of what the truth is or what the truth is all about.\r\nAccording to Bradley (2004), even Einstein, one of the greatest scientists of all time, who showed and discovered the ‘truth’ about things, â€Å"showed that everything is relative” (Bradley, 2004) and â€Å"that truth itself is relative” (Bradley, 2004). The relativity theory of what the truth is also results to the relativity of the findings and conclusions of science in relation to t he truth and how people perceive what the truth is. Finally, science is never an foolproof aspect of human existence.\r\nThere are generation that science cannot also explain certain phenomenon, not at the present at least. But, this should not be seen as to mean that science does not tell the truth but rather, its own limitations and the vagueness of life itself, hides the truth from even among the greatest scientists of our time. If men would live in doubt of the truth offered by science and scientific knowledge; then â€Å"all science becomes deceitful; the search for objective knowledge becomes futile; and no scientific knowledge gathered to date can be true”(Gottlieb, 1997).\r\n'