For most scientists

For most scientists, a influential psychological motivation is curiosity about “how things work” and a taste for knowledgeable stimulation. The joy of scientific discovery is captured in the following abstracts from letters between two experts involved in the progress of quantum mechanics: Max Planck (who opened the quantum era in 1900) and Erwin Schrodinger (who formulated a efficacious quantum theory in 1926).
” Most scientists try to achieve personal fulfillment and professional success by forming intelligent agreements with coworkers and by looking for regard and rewards, status and power in the form of reviews, grant money, employ, upgrades, and respects. When a theory (or a request for research funding) is assessed, most scientists will be influenced by the reasonable question,” “Maybe a researcher has widely taken sides on an issue and there is self-esteem envelopment with a modest desire to “win the debate”; or time and money has been invested in a theory or research project, and there will be higher payoffs, both applied and spiritual,” if there is a favorable evaluation by the scientific community. In these situations, when there is a extensive investment of personal resources, many scientists will try to use sense and “specialist” to influence the process and result of evaluation. “Metaphysics forms a foundation for some theoretical factors, such as standards for the types of entities and interactions that should be used in theories. One example, described earlier, was the preference by many astronomers, counting Copernicus, at constant. Metaphysics can also influence logical structure.’ Darden (1991) suggests that a metaphysical worldview in which nature is simple and unified may lead to a preferred. ” A common metaphysical assumption in science is empirical consistency”, with reproducible results — there is an expectation that identical experimental systems should always produce the same observations. (with “the same” interpret..
” Metaphysical worldviews can be nonreligious, or based on religious principles that are theistic, nontheistic, or atheistic. Everyone has a worldview, which does not cease to exist if it is ignored or denied. For example, to the extent that positivists (also called empiricists) who try to prohibit unobservable in theories are interested by a futile effort to produce a science without metaphysics, they are motivated by their own metaphysical worldviews.
Ideological principles’ are based on subjective values and on political goals for “the way things should be” in society. “These principles span a wide range of concerns, including socioeconomic structures, race relations, gender issues, social philosophies and customs,”
A dramatic example of political influence is the control of Russian biology, from the 1930s into the 1960s, by the “ideologically correct” theories and research programs of Lysenko, supported by the power of the Soviet government.
The quotation marks are a reminder that a perception of authority is in the eye of the beholder. Perceived authority can be due to an acknowledgment of expertise, a response to a dominant personality, and/or involvement in a power relationship. Authority that is based at least partly on power occurs in scientists’ relationships with employers, tenure committees, cliques of colleagues, professional organizations, journal editors and referees, publishers, grant reviewers, and politicians who vote on funding for science.
. These five factors (psychology, practicality, metaphysics, ideology, authority) interact with each other, and they develop and operate in a complex social context at many levels — in the lives of individuals, in the scientific community, and in society as a whole. In an attempt to describe this complexity, the analysis-and-synthesis framework of ISM includes: the characteristics of individuals and their interactions with each other and with a variety of groups (familial, recreational, professional, political,…); profession-related politics (occurring primarily within the scientific community) and societal politics (involving broader issues in society); and the institutional structures of science and society.
The term “cultural-personal” implies that both cultural and personal levels are important. These levels are intimately connected by mutual interactions because individuals (with their motivations, concerns, worldviews, and principles) work and think in the context of a culture, and this culture (including its institutional structure, operations, and politics, and its shared concepts and habits of thinking) is constructed by and composed.
Cultural-personal factors are influenced by the social and institutional context that constitutes the reward system of a scientific community. In fact, in many ways this context can be considered a causal mechanism that is partially responsible for producing the factors. For example, a desire for respect is intrinsic in humans, existing independently of a particular social structure, but the situations that stimulate this desire (and the responses that are motivated by these situations) do depend on the social structure. An important aspect of a social-institutional structure is its effects on the ways in which authority is created and manifested, especially when power relationships are involved.000000
What are the results of mutual interactions between science and society? How does science affect culture, and how does culture affect science?
The most obvious effect of science has been its medical and technological applications, with the accompanying effects on health care, lifestyles, and social structures. But science also influences culture, in many modern societies, by playing a major role in shaping cultural worldviews, concepts, and thinking patterns. Sometimes this occurs by the gradual, orchestrated diffusion of ideas from science into the culture. At other times, however, there is a conscious effort, by scientists or nonscientists, to use “the authority of science” for rhetorical purposes, to claim that scientific theories and evidence support a particular belief system or political program.
which is mainly concerned with the operation of science, asks “How does culture affect science?” Some influence occurs as a result of manipulating the “science affects culture” influence described above. If society wants to obtain certain types of science-based medical or technological applications, this will influence the types of scientific research that society supports with its resources. And if scientists (or their financial supporters) have already accepted some cultural concepts, such as metaphysical and/or ideological theories, they will tend to prefer (and support) scientific theories that agree with these cultural-personal theories. this influence appears as a conceptual factor, external relationships… with cultural-personal theories. For example, the Soviet government supported the science of Lysenko because his theories and research supported the principles of Marxism. They also hoped that this science would increase their own political power, so their support of Lysenko contained a strong element of self-interest.
. Some cultural-personal influence occurs due to a desire for personal consistency in life. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1956), if there is a conflict between ideas, between actions, or between thoughts and actions, this inconsistency produces an unpleasant dissonance, and a person will be motivated to take action aimed at reducing the dissonance. In the overall context of a scientist’s life, which includes science and much more, a scientist will seek consistency between the science and non-science aspects of life . For example, during the period when the research program of Lysenko dominated Russian biology, the Soviets wanted consistency between their ideological beliefs and scientific beliefs. A consistency between ideology and science will reduce psychological dissonance, and it is also logically preferable. If a Marxist theory and a scientific theory are both true, these theories should agree with each other. If the theories of Marx are believed to be true, there tends to be a decrease in logical status for all theories that are inconsistent with Marx, and an increase in status for theories consistent with Marx. This logical principle, applied to psychology, forms the foundation for theories of cognitive dissonance, which therefore also predict an increase in the status of Lysenko’s science in the context of Soviet politics.
Usually scientists (and others) want theories to be not just plausible, but also useful. With Lysenko’s biology, the Soviets hoped that attaining consistency between science policy and the principles of communism would produce increased problem-solving utility. Part of this hope was that Lysenko’s theories, applied to agricultural policy, would increase the Russian food supply; but nature did not cooperate with the false theories, so this policy resulted in decreased productivity. Another assumption was that the Soviet political policies would gain popular support if there was a belief that this policy was based on (and was consistent with) reliable scientific principles. And if science “plays a major role in shaping cultural…thinking patterns,” the government wanted to insure that a shaping-of-ideas by science would support their ideological principles and political policies. The government officials also wanted to maintain and increase their own power, so self-interest was another motivating factor.three large arrows point toward “evaluation of theory” from the three evaluation factors, and three small arrows point back the other way. These small arrows show the feedback that occurs when a conclusion about theory status already has been reached based on some factors and, to minimize cognitive dissonance, there is a tendency to interpret other factors in a way that will support this conclusion. Therefore, each evaluation criterion is affected by feedback from the current status of the theory and from the other two criteria.
In the case of Lysenko there was an obvious, consciously planned interference with the operation of science. But cultural influence is usually not so obvious. A more subtle influence is exerted by the assumed ideas and values of a culture (especially the culture of a scientific community) because these assumptions, along with explicitly formulated ideas and values, form a foundation for the way scientists think when they generate and evaluate theories, and plan their research programs. The influence of these foundational ideas and values, on the process and content of science, is summarized at the top of the ISM diagram: “Scientific activities…are affected by culturally influenced thought styles.” discusses thought styles: their characteristics; their effects on the process and content of science; and their variations across different fields, and changes with time.
. When scholars are thinking about cultural-personal factors and their influence in science, too often there is too much over-generalizing. It’s easy to get carried away into silly ideas, unless we remember that all of these cultural-personal factors vary in different areas of science and in communities within each area, and for different individuals, so the types and amounts of resulting influences (on the process of science and the content of science) vary widely.
“Among scholars who study science there is a wide range of views about the extent to which cultural factors influence the process and content of science. These differences, and the role of cultural factors in ISM and in science education,. ” Briefly shortened, my opinion is that an extreme emphasis on cultural influence is neither accurate nor educationally beneficial, and that even though there is a significant traditional influence on the process of science, usually (but not always) the content of science is not strongly affected by traditional factors.”


I'm Dora

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out

I'm Barry!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out