Argument Analysis: The Scientific Method

Amanda Rogers
Philosophy 1370
Mr. Saucedo
March 5, 2017 The Scientific Method

The scientific method is a way of applying steps to solve a problem and come to a conclusion based on the data. The scientific method has evolved over the years into the system we have in place now. Induction is what the scientific method begins with in today’s world. You start with a question that needs solving and then forms the hypothesis. Then, experiments are set up to test these theories which help to rule out any other variables. In the past theories were based off of feelings or perceptions rather than facts or reasoning. In my opinion, the most appealing view of the scientific method is a view proposed by
I can follow this line of thinking because I can agree that the best way to test out a theory is by trial and error. I believe that the best answer must be tried and true in order to be believed completely. Peirce’s idea is an experimental method for establishing truth by using the scientific method. The hypothesis must be tested and proven before declaring it as the truth is the perfect example of checks and balances. Charles Peirce was an American philosopher who has a background in surveying and chemical engineering. His background gives him the skills needed to apply logic in the world of philosophy. He was also considered to be one of the greatest logicians of his decade. Peirce is also considered to be a pragmatist much like William James, another well known philosopher. Pragmatism can be defined as an approach that assesses the truth behind theories on how successfully they have been applied. Scientific method has evolved greatly over the years. When Peirce developed his view on the scientific method, he basically just added in the concept of reality. He says, “Productive human inquiry must be grounded firmly in reality; only then will our beliefs tend to correspond with the facts”. Peirce has a few ways that support why his method is a good one. One way would be that the scientific method stands on its own and doesn’t fall
Kuhn is one philosopher whose ideas are different than what I what consider appropriate as a replacement for the scientific method. The first idea that Kuhn states is that having the right method is not enough to reach a scientific conclusion. He believes that scientists are led to conclusions by pre existing beliefs. He proposed a new idea for how we interpret science. It was later known as a scientific revolution. Before now scientists would build upon theories based off of known facts. Kuhn proposed that once you have a new idea that doesn’t fit into the preconceived box of ideas that a new box should be formed. Basically, instead of adding new ideas to our research, he shows the possibility of taking these new ideas and calling them a revolution which will lead to new research. Another point of view is made by a famous philosopher name Descartes. Descartes believed that a solid foundation was important behind any theory or ideals. He believed that you had to have no room for errors in science because perceptions of things can be misleading. Peirce refuted this logic by advocating that mistakes were inevitable when trying to get to the truth of something. This makes complete sense when you are in the steps of testing out a hypothesis. If one avenue doesn’t work, then you eliminate the variables and test