Monday, February 22, 2010
Science and validating arguments
In every reading we have done the main focus has been on science. Within each of these readings science is portrayed as the ultimate authority, and the scale that is used to judge everything against. So does science provide the validity of arguments more so than another form of support, such as emotional or ethical support? Is science the strongest support available to an argument of any form? In the Lost World, science was given the utmost respect and the masters of science were even compared to the mighty gods on Mount Olympus. The backing of the scientific community made the professors seem like gods among mere mortals to the onlookers at the first assembly. Does science really garner this much respect from the general public? Why are people so much more likely to believe an argument if there is scientific support? What is the force behind science that allows it to make arguments so valid?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Corner and Hahn (2009) actually published an article called "Evaluating Science Arguments" Evidence, Uncertainty and Argument Strength". One major finding of this article was that the strength of an argument is based on whether there is supporting evidence, whether the the source is respectable, and whether the argument itself is scientific. Each of these variables has a different effect on the perception of the argument. Corner and Hahn found that arguments most likely to be accepted by the population are scientific arguments from a reliable source with plenty of supporting evidence. However, arguments that are least likely to be accepted by the population are also scientific arguments from unreliable sources with little supportive evidence. Based on these findings it would appear that scientific arguments are judged more critically than nonscientific arguments. The source of an argument and the amount of supportive evidence seem to have the greatest impact on the persuasiveness of a position. This can be seen from Challenger's difficulties in persuading his peers at the beginning of "The Lost World". He is a poor source because of his arrogance and he has very little evidence to support his claims.
ReplyDeleteA connection to one of the readings that have been done in class is to the Lost World. As already mentioned Professor Challenger makes a scientific argument about the existence of Maple White Land, the world of prehistoric organisms. However, due to his absent evidence the scientific community and society in general was unwilling to accept his observations even though he is a scientist which then makes him a valid source for scientific arguments. A connection can also be made to The Varieties of Man in the Archipelago where Alfred Wallace is making a scientific argument about the races he found in the archipelago, he provides supporting evidence and he himself is a valid source of scientific information since he is a man of science. Society accepted his argument as he provided all the necessary information that allowed for a valid argument and had no factors working against him that would deem is argument invalid.
ReplyDelete