Moral Judgements Jakob Bronowski’s book, “Science and Human Values” argues that the scientific method of inquiry into reality provides a generally applicable foundation for moral judgement. Bronowski says, “in order to keep the study in a manageable field. I will continue to choose a society in which the principle of truth rules. Therefore the society which I will examine is that formed by scientists themselves: it is the body of scientists” (Bronowski 58).
Bronowski makes it clear in his book that he is going to base his study on scientists.
There are five steps in the scientific method of inquiry into reality. The first one being Observation, the second is Hypothesis, the third is Experiments, the fourth is Theory, and the fifth being Publishing. In the book’s second chapter, “The Habit of Truth”, Bronowski explains how people observe or recognize things. “The scientist or artist takes two facts or experiences which are separate; he finds in them a likeness which had not been seen before; and he creates a unity by showing the likeness” (Bronowski 27).
The method of observation requires the scientist to find the similarity in both objects and make a generalization out of it. The example Bronowski uses of, is a coin.
A person first sees the head of the penny and then the tail, and he then concludes that both parts are from the same coin. Bronowski says, .”.. we know the thing only by mapping and joining our experiences of its aspects” (Bronowski 31).
The Term Paper on Scientific method 3
The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon. The observations are made visually or with the aid of scientific equipment. 2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon in the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Test the hypothesis by analyzing the results of observations or by predicting and observing the existence of new ...
The second step will be making a hypothesis or an educated guess of what is going to happen.
The example Bronowski uses is of this little girl who knew a doctor who wore a hearing aid, thus every time she met a person with a hearing aid, she automatically assumed that the person is a doctor. The generalization that the little girl made was of course mistaken (Bronowski 37).
The third step is the test to see if the hypothesis is correct. Bronowski says, “the place of experience is to test and correct the concept.
The test is, “Will the concept work? Does it give an unforced unity to the experience of men? Does the concept make life orderly, not by edict but in fact?” (Bronowski 41).
This test makes sure that the results will turn out similar every time according to the conditions of the experiment. The forth step is to compose a theory. Bronowski says, “they {scientists} begin from concepts which are held to be fixed absolutely; they then proceed by deduction” (Bronowski 38).
A deduction is to reach a conclusion by reasoning. The last step is to publish one’s theory to other scientists around the world, so that others could test if the theory is valid. This reveals a sense of trust and openness amongst scientists. As Bronowski says, “the habit of simple truth to experience has been the mover of civilization” (Bronowski 43).
This conveys that scientists need to trust and help each other in order for their experiments or scientific theory to progress. Bronowski also portrays how each scientist should trust each other and how “we must be able to trust their word” (Bronowski 57).
Trust and being open with each other is an example of good morals. Without trust there will be no truth, and not telling the truth means that a good moral is not being done. “Truth is the drive at the center of science; it must have the habit of truth, not as a dogma but as a process,” says Bronowski (Bronowski 60).
The Essay on Do Scientists Have Any Special Moral Obligations?
1. Topic: Consider the extent to which knowledge issues in ethics are similar to those in at least one other area of knowledge Do scientists have any ‘special’ moral obligations? Or should science seek to be free from any values and morals? This has been a popular topic that has been discussed throughout not only this century but also, centuries previous to us. While looking at natural sciences ...
This conveys that scientists rely on the truth and only facts to base their experiments and to find solutions to problems.
This shows that the scientific method of inquiry into reality is a good base for moral judgement because scientists believe that honesty and having trust between each other are essential. Another example of good morals in the scientific world, is that scientists are tolerant towards each others’ opinions, which is excellent because scientists are required to be open minded and speak of the truth as otherwise they would not be recognized, trusted by others, and may even be thought as incompetent as a scientist. Similarly, I think that it is good that people are tolerant towards one another, so that there is room for trial and error, and a mistake would not mean a failure. Bronowski also says, “tolerance among scientists cannot be based on indifference; it must be based on respect” (Bronowski 63).
Again, this shows another good moral in which scientists respect each other and also respect each other’s work. In summary, Jakob Bronowski gives a good foundation for moral judgement’s because they describe values and characteristics such as trust, truth, tolerance, and openness. I believe that people who follow the scientific method of inquiry into reality will get a good basis of what is morally right and wrong in society as scientists have a good grasp of what moral judgement’s should be like. If scientists, people who are sometimes stereotyped as geniuses, “weirdo”, and have intelligent beyond the norm do not exert good morals, then the rest of us should be excused for not having them.
