Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on New Science. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page paper discussing the theories of Margaret Wheatley in “Leadership and the New Science,” with that of Karl Popper in “A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems.” Wheatley’s theory is essentially that everything must change
and as a result of this change we can choose to look negatively or positively. Everything must change and as such is open for some incredibly positive realizations. In Popper’s ideas the notions addressed concern the idea of Inductive reasoning and planning. While at times the two ideas appear to coincide, essentially they address different ways of thinking about scientific progress and theorizing. No additional sources are cited.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_Newsci.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
still there is at least a fundamental truth behind each scientists reasoning. In examining the theory of new science, as illustrated by Margaret Wheatley, we see much that makes sense.
And in further examination of here ideas and reasoning we compare it with that of the theories of Karl Popper. While it appears as though both of them are speaking
on different topics most of the time, there are points where the two authors are in agreement, illustrating a way of examining science and progress. Wheatley starts her paper by
discussing the flexibility and inherent ability to change that is within a stream, illustrating how things, though they change, are not necessarily vulnerable to destruction, but rather improvement. She illustrates
how the stream or river, or undeniable force, flows in a logical pattern to some extent, yet is predominantly open to change in the effort to improve the situation of
flow. She associates this with organizations and states that, "Organizations lack this kind of faith that they can accomplish their purposes in various ways and that they do best
when they focus on direction and vision, letting transient forms emerge and disappear" (16). She explains the negative forces of an apparent fear that seem to drive us to distrust
change and the inevitable occurrences that are associated with such. "We seem fixated on structures; and we build them strong and complex because they must, we believe, hold back the
dark forces that are out to destroy us. Its a hostile world out there, and organizations, or we who create them, survive only because we build crafty and smart-smart enough
to defend ourselves from the natural forces of destruction" (16). In her reasoning it appears as though we are very much afraid to face inevitable change that could result in
...