Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Chalmers' Theory-Dependence Of Observation. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
5 pages in length. Science, solidly entrenched in undeniable substantiation, is the epitome of tangible thought; without benefit of concrete evidence, simple conjecture is all exists in the ongoing quest for knowledge. Thus, according to Chalmers' (1976) Theory-Dependence of Observation is the foundation upon which scientific knowledge is formulated; without empirical replication, science would have no way of evolving from observation to unmitigated proof. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: LM1_TLCChalmers.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
of Observation is the foundation upon which scientific knowledge is formulated; without empirical replication, science would have no way of evolving from observation to unmitigated proof. Scientific discovery is what
the fundamental essence of life is based upon; without Aristotles initial quest into the notion of logic, contemporary society would know nothing of the extraordinary influence science has had upon
human existence ever since. For example, Chalmers (1976) speaks of how Galileo was very steeped within the science of world definition; indeed, he found no place for the unknown
- the belief in those things that could not be seen, felt or proven by scientific means. Not content to blindly believe in that which he could not prove,
Galileo was considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time who was a significant proponent of science and belief in all things that could be proven from empirical evidence.
Galileos precedence setting discovery of obtaining scientific proof over mere conjecture is what has led subsequent researchers like Chalmers to further the connection between the properties of observation and
the absolute reality of scientific confirmation. However, Chalmers (1976) is quick to point out how everything accepted as scientific fact is not necessarily based within the origins of observation
(genes, DNA, etc.), giving considerable pause to the omnipotent credibility of this particular approach. "If we take contemporary scientific knowledge at anything like face value, then it has to
be admitted that much of that knowledge refers to the unobservable. How can such knowledge be accommodated into the inductivist position? Insofar as inductive reasoning involves some kind
of generalisation from observable facts, it would appear that such reasoning is not capable of yielding knowledge of the unobservable...This leaves the inductivist in the uncomfortable position of having to
...