Sociology

Compare and contrast Harding’s understanding of the role of values in science to Haack’s understanding of values in science

This is following the scepticism and rejection of scientific claim made by scientists since sociology bases its findings and works on numerous grounds including plain belief. This is especially so in making alternative beliefs true, whereas there is no epistemological truth in them. She is also of the view that these metaphysical and sociological subjects often question the viability of discovering scientific truths based on proof and evidence, which is due to her background in epistemological views on the role of science. Haack’s views on science and scientific laws are all based on epistemology and they serve to establish a difference between science and religion, where there are conflicting beliefs based on proof for science and lack of it in religion (Forrest 335). Haack calls for following of scientific methodology rather than following belief blindly, where she describes science as not being a body of beliefs, but a federation. This federation is said to be composed of different kinds of inquiry based on philosophical approaches of reasoning and experience. This she views as being that science is composed of different bodies that are then unified by methodology and empiricism and this is received as having no relation whatsoever in relation to going beyond the rule of empirical epistemology. It is going beyond the rule of empirical epistemology that provides room for application of freewill in exercising one’s faith in natural phenomenon without scientific proof (Forrest 370). As a result, Haack’s understanding of the role of values in science is that science is almost solely based on empirical facts, of which religion can never become a part of in the essential understanding of the existence of the universe. Consequently, Haack views science’s role in the universe as explaining the role of man in it and his interaction with it beyond reasonable doubt. This is all while religion goes beyond that which science can prove to offer a super naturalist interpretive framework to explain scientific occurrences (Forrest 333). The above in comparison to Harding’s understanding reveals a difference that even offers a large variation from the understanding of Haack in that Harding dwells a lot on sociology. It is in this case that she calls for inclusion of other science disciplines that are conventionally not recognized in order to fit the western standard of science, in which case this is a fully socialist view. Harding bears an inclusionist’s perspective, which is similar to that of typical feminists seeing that bringing together other ethno sciences is part of her to call to contribute to science. This, as her sociological basis, brings about a strong ground on which to base the comparison between Harding and Haack in their views on the role of science vales. This is also part of Harding’s view on objectivity, where approaches to science should be fully objective to allow exploration and not using approaches based on already existing knowledge to come up with EW information. Instead, this is contrary to Haack, in that Haack’s understanding is confined to the scientific world, where scientific methodology remains the only way to prove

Back To Top