Name : Salma Manzoor

F. Name : M. Manzoor Alam

Roll # : BY650980

Assignment : 01
Semester : Autumn 2019

Course : Foundation of Science Education

(695)

Tutor Name : Sir Sohail

Address : R-11/12 Star Homes, ground floor, Nipa, Karachi.

E-mail : salmamanzoor86@yahoo.com.
Q.No.1: Modern science supports religion. Give your opinion with evidence in
this regard.

An:

The combination of man’s intellect and curiosity have provided him with
irresistible motivations to know and understand the nature of his environment and the
causes of its creation. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the scientific and
religious activities started almost simultaneously with the “creation of man”. The
evolution of every kind of civilization on the face of this earth, and indeed the entire
human progress, has largely been based or canted on religion and science.

Since the dawn of civilization, successive generation of human beings have been
spending almost unlimited amounts of time and energy in the accumulation of wealth
and in grabbing more resources and territories. Science and technology in one from or
another, have played a key role in this process. The traditional role of religion has been
to emphasize the transient nature of lie on the planet, slow down the senseless race for
material gain and encourage the spiritual up life of the society.

Perhaps it was the study of this age-old conflict which led Ingersoll to deduce that
‘religion has reduced Spain to a guitar, Italy to a hand organ and Ireland to exile’. Karl
Marx went even further, brushing aside every religion by calling it ‘the opium of the
people’.

However, the apparent conflict of science and religion, and the consequent
separation of the ‘two cultures’ in watertight compartments, is a uniquely western
creation. It is a result and some would argue a natural result of the hostilities between
those who claimed to be custodians of Christianity and those who challenged their
intellectual and territorial power. What institution Christianity did to intellectuals and
scientists of the middle ages is well recorded in European history. But to take an
inductive leap from what was a particularly European experience and generalize it to an
all-embracing conflict between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ is not just Eurocentric but also
poor scholarship.

Such historic experiences are alien to Non-European civilizations such as those of

China and Islam. For in their world-views reason and revelation. Science and religion,
are two side of the same coin:

2|Page
 It is interesting to note that from a Muslim perspective, no confide between true
Christianity and science. As the Quran tells us, Mouse, Jesus and Muhammad all
preached the same message:

Say you; we believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent
down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob and the Tribes and that which was given to
Moses and Jesus and the prophets of their Loud;

We make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender.

But that messages, so Muslims believe has been somewhat distorted by

institutionalized Christianity with the consequent dichotomy between the sacred and
the profane.

First the Biblical view of nature itself was essentially for the man of Biblical faith,
nature was de-divinized for the ‘people of the Book’ everything man finds on earth and
now, in the space age, even beyond the earth.

The second important element is the Biblical view of work. This doctors was
frequently obscured through the Christian ages by Hel: Lenic philosopher influence. It
breakers through clearly, however, when the fuse is pot on the Bibles straight owed
nation of man’s nature.

The ideal of change of doing something new then is central or Biblical theology. It
is also a mark of modernity. For both Biblical religion and modernity republican the
static or the fatalistically both look upon man first as a creature caplet of effecting
change and second as responsible for his own fate, his own counteract and the
management of the world.

There is indeed no human work prior to modern times that contains statements
which were equally in advance of the state of knowledge at the time they appeared and
which might be compared to the Quran.

In addition to this, a comparative study of data of a similar kind contained in the

Bible (Old Testament and Gospels) seemed desirable. This is how the project was
formed of a conformation between modern knowledge and certain passages in the Holy
Scriptures of each monotheistic religion. It resulted in the publication of a book under
the religion, title, the Bible, the Quran and science. The first French edition appeared in
May, 1976, (Seglers Paris). English and Arabic editions have now been published.

3|Page
 Once we begin to ask Ourselves in an unbiased or un prejudiced way about the
metaphysical lessons to be derived from some of today’s knowledge, (for example our
knowledge’s of the infinity small or the problem of life, we indeed discover many
reasons for thinking along these liens). When we think about the remarkable
organization presiding over the birth and maintenance of life, it subway becomes clear
that the likelihood of it being the result of chance restless and less. As our knowledge
and progress in this failed expand, cretin concepts must appear to be increasingly
unacceptable; for example, the one put for word by the French winner of the Noble
prize for medicine who self tried to get people to admit that living matter was self-
created or the result of fortuitous circumstances under the office of certain outside
influences using simple chemical elements as their base. For this it is claimed
remarkable complex called man.

To me, it would seem that the scientific progress made in understanding the
fantastic complex of higher being provides strong arguments in favor of the opposite
theory: In other words, the example existence of an extraordinary methodical
organization presiding over the remarkable arrangement of the phenomena of life.

In many parts of the Book, the Quran leads, in simple terms, to this king kind of
general reflection. But it also contains infinitely more praise data which are directly
related to facts discovered by modern science these are what exercise a magnetic
attraction for today’s scientists.

Book Ref: Study Guide “Foundation of Science Education”. AIOU.

4|Page
Q.No.2: Explain the relationship between science and philosophy.

An:

An analysis of this definition will disclose at last there three characteristics of

philosophy:

Philosophy is a human intellectual activity:

Of the many activities of man there is that activity which may be called
philosophy. It is distinguished from other human activities in that it belongs to that
group of activities which many be called intellectual. Thus philosophy is an activity of
man’s mind and not or intellguished from other human construction such an intellectual
activity of philosophy. Thus the following two terms should be carefully distinguished
from each other.

Philosophy- the collective noun denoting the intellectual activity with

characteristics to be described below.

A philosophy – the singular noun denoting the intellectual construction of an

explanatory hypothesis resulting from the intellectual is activity called philosophy.

Philosophy or a human intellect activity aims at acquiring a body of an general

and systematic knowledge. This is the goal of philosophy. The subjects matter of this
body of general and systematic knowledge is those aspects which are characteristic of
reality of it as a whole. There are at least three aspect which are characteristic of this
reality as a whole, being value and knowledge. These three aspects give rise to the three
main problem of philosophy: the problem of being of value and of knowledge.

The purpose for acquiring this body of general and systematic knowledge is to
gain an understanding of the whole of reality. Understanding is that ability to see
beneath the superficial and seemingly obvious into the sub interrelationship between
seemingly isolated things and events and thus to view them in a wider perspective, such
understanding is the purpose of philosophy. This understanding is concerned with the
whole life of reality. Thus the whole of reality is the subjects matter of philosophy.

The body of general and systematic knowledge. Concerning those aspects of

reality. Characteristic of it as a whole of reality which gives understanding of the whole
of reality many be called wisdom in its theoretical aspect. The ability to brings this

5|Page
theoretical widow to bear upon the problems and tasks of life is called practical wisdom.
Thus the definition of philosophy given above is in accrued with the root meaning of the
word philosophy as the search of wisdom and philosophy as an intellectual construction
(a philosophy) is the wisdom south.

There are at least three similarities between philosophy and the sciences. This
should be understood in the light of the differences given below.

 Philosophy and the science are both human intellectual activities.

 Philosophy and the science both have same goal. They both seek a body of
general and systematic knowledge.
 Philosophy and science both are concerned with reality.

The positive relation between philosophy and the

science:
The positive relation between philosophy and the sciences is twofold and may be
expressed in the following ways: philosophy is scientific and the science have a
philosophy foundation.

Philosophy is scientific:
This things should be noted consideration philosophy implies that scientific
method for an outline of the scientific method see section I.B.3.

Two things should be two consideration the philosophy. Use of the scientific
method the philosophical use of the scientific method is mostly conferred to the
explanatory phase. Philosophy draws upon the non-philosophy sciences mainly for the
results of the descriptive phase.

Because of the difficulty of verification philosophy tends to culminate in a

number of explanatory hypothesis (usually called philosophies) rather the theories.

Philosophy is composed of sciences which called philosophical sciences. Though

those sciences philosophy cards on its intellectual activity of the search for wisdom.

6|Page
The sciences have a philosophy foundation:
There are many basic questions in each of the non-philosophical sciences which
are philosophy in nature and cannot be answered by any particular sciences as such
problems are the limits of the area of the other sciences etc. Even the philosophical
sciences of ontology, axiology and epistemology are interdependent in this way. For
there are problem in each which only the others can be properly deal with. For this
reason philosophy many be said to be fundamental and the sciences may be said to
have philosophical foundation.

Philosophy has implication for the sciences:

As a result of its investigations through the philosophy sciences. Philosophy
arrivers at certain results concerning those aspects of reality characteristic of it as a
whole that have implications for the individual sciences. Even the philosophical sciences
of ontology, axiology and epistemology have implications for each others, they need
each other’s results.

Book Ref: Study Guide “Foundation of Science education”.

7|Page
Q.No.3: Explain the concept of constructivism. How will you apply this concept in
your teaching ?

Ans:

Constructivism: A paradigm for the practical of science education is the heading to

Tobin’s preface to his collection of papers by educationalists largely committed to the
cause of constructivism in science education. He begins by saying that currently there is
a paradigm war raging in education, in which some have ‘argued for a change in
epistemology, evidently with some success for he claims there is evidence of
widespread acceptance of alternatives to objectivism, one of which is constructivism.
But what are constructivism and is alternative objectivism.

Anti-realism of which constructivism is a variety is an old one , the theory of

scientific knowledge objectivism is a broad doctrine which includes not only scientific
realism (a doctrine discussed in this paper) but also the idea that there are objective
critical methods for adjudicating between scientific hypothesis (an aspect of objectivism
only obliquely mentioned here). Does science make discoveries about a human-
independent world, including the world of unobservable entities such as gravitation or
electric charge ? Scientific realists say ‘yes’ while admitting that we are fallible and may
not always be right about what exists in the unobservable realm. Common sense realism
and scientific realism maintain that these exists objects , events and processes in the
world which are independent of all human perception and all thought or theorizing
about them. Are there such items ? common sense realists maintain that the sun, cats,
water etc exist in a mind-independent way (though we have been mistaken about some
items in the past such as additional matter to also say that our theories of science are
true. Some realists resist this saying either that it is not necessary to claim truth for our
theories as well as the commonsense and scientific realism just defined; or they say that
at best our theories are idealizations of , or approximations to what goes on at the level
of the observable and the unobservable.

Anti-realists, including constructivists deny that science makes discoveries about

a human, independent world, including the world of unobservable entities – but they
qualify this in various ways constructivists allege that it is we who constitute or
construct, on the basis of our theorizing or our experience the allegedly unobservable
items postulated in our theories. In a different Vein Thosmas Kuhn expresses skepticism
about our ever being able to get at the truth about what is really these saying:

8|Page
 The notion of a match between the ontology of a theory and its real counterpart
in nature now seems to me illusive in principle, (Kuhn 1970 P.206), Bas Van Fraassen is a
leading philosopher of science who embraces what he calls ‘constructive empiricien’ the
view that in science we aim for models which are only required to fit the observable
phenomena. Realists, he says, illegitimately aim for more:

What has the venerable philosophical debate between realists and anti-realists
about scientific knowledge to do with the teaching and learning constructivism in
science and in science education.

Constructivism in science and in science education:

Of science ? There is no necessary connection. Constructivists in science
education often wrongly assume that the debate can tell us something about the
teaching and learning of science. Constructivist teaching and learning is another matter
best contrasted with didacticism. However it is commonly assumed that a realist
account of science goes with a didactic tell it how it is approach to teaching and learning
while a non-realist account goes with a more personal constructivist approach. But
these assumptions are too crude. The main topic of this paper concerns the way in
which a philosophy bears on the nature of scientific knowledge and on science
education and some of the misleading links constructivists allege hold between the two.

Constructivism in education theory is a protean doctrine in which the metaphors

of building and inventing have run riot. Four questions initially strike,

(1) Who does the constructing ?

(2) What is the relation of constructing ?

(3) How does one construct ?

(4) Something it is the individual person who does the constructing.

As in more psychologically oriented accounts influenced by the work of paged or

Von Clasersfeld. But we are not to confuse the constructing in which pupils may engage
in learning science with the constructing scientists may engage while actively doing
science. It might be pedagogically useful for some pupils to follow, in their learning, the
actual path of the evolution of some science, but deep confusion can only result from

9|Page
not separation scientists alleged construction of scientific knowledge from pupils
‘constructivist learning or teacher constructivist teaching of science.

Sometimes it is a group (e.g. pupils and teacher) or society as a whole which

constructs. There are several sources of social constructivism in science education, from
the social theories of language of Vygotsky and Wittgenstein to the social theories of
science of the Edinburgh Strong programmed for the sociology of scientific knowledge,
advocated in various ways by Bloor, Barnes , Collins, Pinch, Schaffer Shapin and a host of
others. There are also social constructivist elements in Piagel and von Glaserfeld.

However, once more, confusion between pupils and scientists social construction
must be avoided.

What sort of relation is constructing and how does one do it ? Most of the
difficulties in constructivism can be located here. One influential account of the
constructivism educational paradigm , has been advocated by Ernst Von Glasersfeld; his
distinction between trivial and radical constructivism is explored in section 3.

Philosophical Origins; A Brief Survey:

Socrates and Plato: the construction of reasons for knowledge:
Down the ages the works of Plato have been an important source for
educationalists. The Meno provides us not only with the first attempt at a definition of
knowledge as opposed to belief but also , in Socrates encounter with the Slave-Boy , a
model for pedagogy which is non-didactic and thus important for both constructivists
and non-constructivists alike consider the episode with the Slave-Boy.

Meno presents Socrates with a conundrum part of which says that we cannot
learn any thing new because we can not know when we have hit upon the right answer
(Meno 80D-E) Socrates counters this in the dialogue with a Slave-Boy who patently does
not know the answer to the geometrical questions ‘What is the length of the side of a
square double the area of a given square the side of which is 2 meters long and who
then comes to know what is the correct answer. The Boy initially thinks that answer is
double the side of the given square, i.e, 4m. Using a question-answer method Socrates
gets the Boy to work out the areas of the two squares whose sides are 2m and 4m long.
While doing this Socrates emphasizes his non-didactic approach towards the Boy’s

10 | P a g e
thinking about the geometrical problem when he say to Meno; ‘you see Meno that I am
not teaching (telling) him anything, only asking (84E)., Socrates does not tell the Slave-
Boy that his answer of 4m is wrong; rather through the question-answer method the
Boy comes to realize himself that his answer is wrong. The same non-didactic procedure
is repeated to show the Boy that his wrong answer of 3m is also wrong.

Since the Boy has run out of suggestion Socrates given him a hint about what
geometrical move he should try next and then, employing only the Boy’s capacities to
reason about the question put to him, takes him to the correct conclusion , viz, the
diagonal of the given square of side 2m two important points are now made in the
dialogue about the pedagogy.

Constructivism in Science and in Science Education:

Calproces the Boy has undergone, Socrates asks Meno; has he , the Slave Boy
answered with any opinions that were not his own. The reply is ‘No’ (85B). The first
opinion is that at each stage of the questioning process the Slave-Boy has acquired or, if
you like the metaphor has constructed; for himself the reasons which show that his first
two answers were wrong and that his third answer is correct. In being opposed to
didactic and Plato are the first constructivists in education. This is part of the common
sense core of constructivism that few would clang. But as will be argued even thought
Socrates and Plato could admit a ‘constructive’ element in arriving at the reasons which
eliminate false belief and turn true belief into knowledge, they do not endorse a
constructivist account of the nature of knowledge itself.

The second point concerns knowledge directly, Socrates comments on the

correct answer given by the Slave-Boy.

In Socrates view, students do not acquire knowledge through picking up bits of

(true) in formation didactically conveyed to them. Even being led through a questin-
answer session does not provide by itself knowledge; at best the process can only leads
pupils to the correct belief. Only when they can go through the steps of reasoning by
themselves and thereby make fully explicit to themselves the reasons for the correct
answer will they have knowledge. Re-expressing this more metaphysically, only by
constructing, for oneself the reasons for a true belief can one acquire knowledge.

11 | P a g e
 Socrates answer to the initial conundrum posed by Meno is that we can
recognize that we have knowledge when we have satisfactory reasons for the truth of
what we belief. This is spelled out by Socrates as follows:

True opinions are a fine thing and do all sorts of goods so long as they in their
place; but they will not stay long. They run away from a man’s mind , so they are not
worth much until you tether them by working out the reason…..once they are tied
down, they become knowledge, and are stable that is why knowledge is something
more valuable then right opinion, what distinguishes one from the other is the tether
(97E-98A).

The definition of knowledge proposed here is important. Expressed explicitly

where A is some person and P stands for the content of a belief held by A:

A knows that P = Defn

P is true (Truth condition);

A believes that P (belief condition)

A has a tethering reason (justification evidence) that P (justification condition)

Book Ref: Study Guide , “Foundation of Science Education” AIOU.

12 | P a g e
Q.No.4: Write a detailed note on renaissance of knowledge.

Ans:

Islam, unlike modern Christianity, does not differentiate between matters of

‘state’ and matters of ‘religion’. In this respect , Islam should not really be regarded as a
religion for it is a total system. It is a religion, a culture, a civilization, all at once. And as
a holistic system, it touches every aspect of human endeavor. Islamic ethics and values
permeate all human activity. It follows then that Islam must have something to say
about science and knowledge.

Islam told the Arabs to have their corrupt practices by recognizing the existence
of their creator, by obeying the God who built them and their word. It stated that
recognizing the proper position of God in relation to man was a great advance in
thinking. It claimed that God Himself is the creator of the mind and therefore, is the
ultimate source of all knowledge. Claiming that God is inseparable from man and his
world, Islam negated the concept that God is a reserved being sitting on his unreachable
throne, He being actively and intimately connected with all the proceedings of this
world. Thus , the Muslims felt that as God holds the keys to knowledge, man’s purpose
was to open the doors of ignorance by spreading this knowledge. This led them to view
the entire universe as a divine gift for them to study in developing moral and intellectual
strength to the utmost. In searching for knowledge, Islam strongly demanded that man
study the sciences , since science itself is through of as a divined established system. To
them, it God is the creator of the elements on which chemistry must vary, He is also the
constructor of the solar system which the astronomer beholds, as He is the builder of
the human biological system whose mind intrigues the philosopher and to whose
physiology the physician responds.

As Islam does not permit priesthood or a religious hierarchy, it commands each

and every believe to seek knowledge and be aware of his/her obligations and
responsibilities to society well as God. Thus , in Islam , the pursuit of knowledge is both
a personal and a social obligation. There are scores of verses in the Quran advising the
faithful to seek and acquire knowledge necessary for a better understanding of the
Divine message as well as the universe and every thing contained in it. The first
revelation to Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was a command from God to
read and write and gain knowledge.

13 | P a g e
 Read; in the name of the Lord who created,

Here are a few examples of several authentic sayings:

Acquire knowledge , it enable its possessor to distinguish right from wrong, it

lights the way to heaven. It is our friend in the desert, our company in solitude and
companion when friendless. It guides us to happiness, it sustains us in misery , it is an
ornament amongst friends and an armour against enemies.

To seek knowledge is a duty of every Muslim (male and female).

The angels offer their wings to the seeker of knowledge.

Seek knowledge even though you many have to go to China.

The companions of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and early
Muslims dedicated their lives to acquiring and spreading knowledge about the religion
and other spheres of life. Their solid determination and total commitment for the cause
of leaving and teaching is reflected in the comparison of knowledge.

Knowledge is the legacy of the Prophets , wealth is the intermittence of the

pharaohs. Therefore, knowledge is better than wealth.

Knowledge is better because it is boundless while wealth is limited and you can
keep account of it.

Knowledge is better because knowledge induced the humanity in our Prophet to

say to God, We worship thee as we are your servants, while wealth engendered in
pharaoh and nimrod the variety which made them claim God-head.

Thus from its very inception, Islam emphasized the urgency of organizing means
to acquire and spread knowledge.

The beginning and spread of Islamic learning in the early days of Islam was
centered around individuals rather than schools. The content of Islamic thought was
also characterized by individual effort. Certain outstanding personalities, who had
learned the tradition and had built round it their own legal and the local systems,
attracted student from far and near who sought knowledge from them. The first chief
characteristic of this learning, therefore, and the one which has persisted though out
the middle ages of Islam, is the individual importance of the teacher. Connected which

14 | P a g e
this central importance of the teacher is the phenomena known as seeking of
knowledge.

Recorded history now tells us how thousands upon thousands of dedicated

Muslims students and scholars criss-crossed the vast land mass of the Asian, African and
European continents acquiring and disseminating knowledge among Muslims and non-
Muslims alike.

There are accurate Quranic accounts and interoperations of several scientific

principles and disciplines such as cosmogony and cosmology, astronomy , anatomy,
geology, mineralogy and metrology, agriculture and horticulture , animal husbandry and
dairy farming, navigation and aviation, food preservation, rationing and storage. Some
of the specific scientific topics mentioned in the Quarn are:

The nature of life itself (Biological Sciences) , Heavens, sun, moon, stars , night ,
day , year (space and planetary sciences).

These few examples show that the Quran addresses many topics of scientific
interest to persuade the believers to think, reflect, investigate and postulate. Despite
the act that God is the central theme of the Quran. It never provides a figurative
decryption of the creator but speak of his sign (ayat) around us. The direct implication of
this message is that to understand and comprehend the nature of God, one must
investigate analyses and understand all aspects of his creation.

The Quran repeatedly uses the expressions, why do they not reflect ? why do
they not ponder ? In his seminal work, reconstruction of Reli-gious thought in Islam, the
celebrated Muslim poet and philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal argue that by
repeatedly reminding mankind to reflect and ponder, the Quran aims to awaken in man
the consciousness of that of which nature is regarded as symbol but the point to note is
the general empirical attitude fo the Quran which engendered in its followers a feeling
of reverence for the actual and ultimately made them the founders of modern science.
It was a great point to awaken the empirical spirit in an age which renounced the visible
as of no value in men’s search after God moreover, Iqbal argues further, as scholar like
Al-Ghazzali and Ibn-e-Gkhaldon have argued before him, that total reflection also
includes inner reflection and the pursuit of knowledge should not be divorced from
ethical and value criteria. And it is this consideration that makes the Quranic approach
to science so much different then the western approach to science.

15 | P a g e
Q.No.5: Give implication of “Post-Positivism” in science education with reference
to Pakistan ?

Post Positivism :
Positivism wants to put an end to the emotional and metaphysical, at least for
scientific purposes. Emotions are subjective and not objectively provable. Non-factual
statement have no place in scientific and therefore, true knowledge metaphysical
thinking is useless.

One way positivism attempts to destroy metaphysics is by strictly defining the

syntax of meaningful statements strict criteria for determining the literal
meaningfulness of sentences are constructed. A sentence has literal meaning if and only
if the proposition it expresses is either analytic or empirically verifiable. Further more,
the word proposition is reserved for what is expressed by sentences which are literally
meaningful metaphysical arguments can be successfully debunked by detailed analysis
and proved to be meaningless.

In adopting these verbal conventions, positives relegate metaphysics into

irrelevance science should purge it self of this crass disease which has infected
philosophy for generations science is cumulative and inductive phenomena’s is
assumed. The world can be divided into sets of discrete objects and scientific knowledge
proceeds from bottom-up. Since metaphysics does not meet the analytic and empirical
criteria it is forever banished from the light of day.

Logical Positivism:
Logical positivism is a school of philosophy concerned with the logical analysis of
scientific knowledge. The soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy are
attacked and positivism asserts that many philosophical problems are meaningless,
instead logcal positivism argues that there are only two sources of knowledge logical
reasoning and empirical experience or analytic and syntheitic logical reasoning is
reduciable to formal logic and experience is the only judge of scientific theories
emotionalism and metaphysics are victims of “bad syntax”.

16 | P a g e
 The primary tenet of logical positivism is the verification principle or factual know
ledge statements must be verifiable to have meanings. A statements that is not
verifiable is meaningless and not suitable for serious attention to be verifiable a
statement must be capable of being proved true or false, at least in principle is for
example, the pen exist is a verifiable statements. The statement “rod exists” is not the
existence of the pen can be proven by simply touching and seeing the pen. There is no
condition in which the statement can be proven true or false, there fore it is not a
meaningful question for the positivist.

Implication of Post Positivism :

Positivists believe that theories develop from facts. Scientific perform
experiments gather sense- data, correlate , classify and categorize theories are
deducuible from premises or experience because of empirical patterns that emerge.
Therefore, positivist support the inductive method of scientific laws and theories facts
produce theories. Theories are inferred from direct observation of object and process
the truth of theories can be only acknowledge by experience.

The positivists philosophy of the relations between facts and theory are in direct
conflict with deduction where deduction starts with a hypothesis or heaven forbid,
metaphysical inspiration induction applies as harp razor to logical and factual
statements eliminating the metaphysics and recording the atomic experience. These
atomic facts are correlated and proper upward though few facts sub-laws, laws, super
laws and ultimately theory.

Weakness of positivism as a theory of knowledge axes as a cultural phenomena

are apparent. As a theory of knowledge weaknesses are rooted in the principle of
verification and the impossibility of ethical theory while positivism has largely been
discredited as a general cultural philosophy , the useful tools for scientific philosophy
have survived.

Losing intuition, emotion, metaphysics and ethics is a very negative consequence

of strict logical positivism may have usefulness as a scientific tool, but the loss of other
intellectual arenas of thought become restrictive. Science can tell us things about the
world as they are, but metaphysics and ethics tell us which question to ask. Intuition
provides the unconscious insight for discoveries and is an interesting area of study as to
how science really occurs, as well as providing some guidance for human behavior.

17 | P a g e