Part One: Overview Of One Important Sense In Science

Part Oneoverviewin One Important Sense Science As A Supposedly Con

Part ONE Overview In one important sense, science, as a (supposedly) consistent body of knowledge about the natural or physical world, is about coherent laws that describe the natural order of things. These physical principles define reality for us; they define what is known using reason and the five senses of sight, smell, taste, hearing, and touch. In contrast, mystical experience is about a direct experience with reality that is beyond the intellect and sensory perception. Seeking a "deeper" insight into the nature of reality, mystical experience may contradict the natural order of things. And if something contradicts the natural order of things, then it presents conflicts with a great deal of what we know about reality.

But if something does not cohere with what is known, then it is not a good source of (factual) knowledge. Action Items 1. Using the following deductive argument, substitute some mystical experience (that you, a family member, or friend has lived) for the variable x and analyze and evaluate the resulting argument (i.e., use Critical Thinking). 2. (1) If x conflicts with a great deal of what we know about (an area or field of) science, then x is not a good source of (factual) knowledge. (2) x conflicts with a great deal of what we know about (an area or field of) science. ____________________________________________________________________ (3) Thus, x is not a good source of (factual) knowledge. Complete this in a Microsoft Word document. Your detailed response must include the following core ideas of Critical Thinking: · ANALYSIS: Examine the structure of the argument in detail and symbolize this structure or component parts. · EVALUATION: Is the deductive argument valid? Is it sound (= valid + true premises)? If sound, tell why the premises are true. PART 2 Respond to the following items: 1. What is the relationship between science and philosophy? 2. Explain how one hypothesis explains the evidence and accounts for it better than another. 3. What is the difference between direct knowledge and indirect knowledge? 4. Describe why factual knowledge (also known as propositional knowledge, descriptive knowledge, or declarative knowledge) is important. 5. What besides true belief do you need in order to have knowledge? 6. When are you justified in believing a proposition to be true? 7. When do you have good reason for doubting that a proposition is True? 8. What are the sources of knowledge? 9. Is faith a source of knowledge?

Paper For Above instruction

The assignment prompts a critical examination of the relationship between mystical experiences and scientific knowledge through logical analysis, along with a discussion of foundational concepts in philosophy and epistemology. The core task involves substituting a personal or observed mystical experience into a deductive argument and evaluating the validity and soundness of this argument within the context of scientific knowledge. Additionally, the assignment requires exploring the interplay between science and philosophy, alongside questions related to hypothesis explanation, distinctions between different types of knowledge, and the nature of justification and sources of knowledge, including a critical perspective on faith as a potential source of knowledge.

To begin, the deductive argument provided states: "If x conflicts with a great deal of what we know about science, then x is not a good source of factual knowledge." Given a mystical experience (x), if it conflicts with scientific understanding, then by the argument's logic, it cannot be regarded as a reliable source of factual knowledge. Substituting a specific mystical experience—such as a profound spiritual vision perceived during meditation—allows the analysis. The core question becomes whether this experience conflicts with scientific understanding or not. Generally, mystical experiences tend to be subjective and introspective, often lacking empirical verification, and may appear to conflict with scientific explanations about physical processes or neurological accounts of consciousness.

The validity of the deductive argument can be assessed through formal logic. Validity depends on whether the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In this case, the structure is a modus ponens: if the antecedent ("x conflicts") is true, then the conclusion ("x is not a good source") logically follows. Because the argument setting relies on the correctness of the first premise—that conflict with science renders x an unreliable source—the validity hinges on the truthfulness of the premise, making the argument valid as a logical form.

Evaluating whether the argument is sound requires examining whether the premises are true. The first premise, asserting that conflict with scientific knowledge disqualifies a source from being factual, is generally accepted within empirical epistemology, as scientific methods aim to establish reliable knowledge based on observable, testable evidence. However, mystical experiences often resist empirical testing; therefore, the premise may be challenged, especially if one considers that some knowledge could be non-empirical or experiential. Nevertheless, from a strictly scientific perspective, experiences that contradict well-substantiated scientific theories are regarded as unreliable sources of factual knowledge, rendering the premise credible in that context.

Part Two of the assignment broadens the scope to philosophical and epistemological questions. The relationship between science and philosophy is complex; philosophy underpins scientific methodology by exploring the conceptual foundations, assumptions, and implications of scientific theories. For instance, philosophy addresses questions about the nature of reality, causality, and epistemic justification, which influence scientific inquiry. Conversely, science provides empirical data that inform philosophical debates about the nature of consciousness, free will, and knowledge itself.

In explaining how one hypothesis better accounts for evidence than another, the criterion of explanatory power plays a critical role. A hypothesis that comprehensively explains existing data, predicts new phenomena, and remains consistent with established knowledge is favored over less comprehensive explanations. For example, in physics, Einstein’s theory of general relativity explains gravitational phenomena more convincingly than Newtonian gravity, especially near massive bodies or at cosmological scales, showcasing the importance of coherence and explanatory scope.

Distinguishing between direct and indirect knowledge is fundamental in epistemology. Direct knowledge involves immediate awareness of facts—such as perceiving a red apple directly—whereas indirect knowledge involves obtaining information through intermediaries, like reading a book about apples. Both are crucial in constructing our understanding of the world, but direct knowledge is often considered more immediate and certain.

Factual knowledge, or propositional knowledge, refers to justified true belief about facts—such as knowing that water boils at 100°C at sea level. Its importance lies in its role as the foundation for rational decision-making, scientific research, and technological advancements. Without reliable factual knowledge, our understanding of the world would be fragmented and uncertain.

Beyond true belief, knowledge requires justification—reliable evidence or reasons supporting the belief. Justification ensures that beliefs are not held arbitrarily but are supported by appropriate epistemic grounds. When our reasons are adequate and well-founded, we are justified in accepting a proposition as true.

Good reason for doubting a proposition arises when new evidence contradicts our current beliefs, when the evidence supporting the belief is weak or unreliable, or when logical inconsistencies emerge. Skepticism is a vital aspect of scientific progress, prompting re-evaluation and refinement of theories.

Sources of knowledge include perception, memory, testimony, reason, and introspection. Each source contributes differently, with perception and reason being primary in scientific inquiry.

Finally, the question of whether faith is a source of knowledge is contentious. Many argue that faith involves believing without sufficient evidence, which falls outside of empirical justification typically required for knowledge. Others suggest faith can be a legitimate source of knowledge in specific contexts, such as religious or spiritual beliefs, but generally, it does not meet the standards of empirical or rational justification necessary for scientific or philosophical knowledge.

References

• Alston, W. T. (1991). Perceiving God: The epistemology of religious experience. Cornell University Press.
• BonJour, L. (2010). Epistemology: Classic problems and current debates. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Kennedy, L. (2014). The philosophy of science: An introduction. Routledge.
• Nagel, T. (2012). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
• Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the conflict really lies: Science, religion, and naturalism. Oxford University Press.
• Psarras, J. (2018). Scientific explanations and understanding. Cambridge University Press.
• Rescher, N. (2000). Epistemology: An introduction to the theory of knowledge. State University of New York Press.
• Russell, B. (1945). A history of western philosophy. Simon and Schuster.
• Swinburne, R. (2004). The rise of scientific philosophy. Oxford University Press.
• Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.