Free Paper Sample on Scientific Knowledge in the Modern World

Introduction

Scientific knowledge is a mirrored human science from a social perspective. In the contemporary world, scientific knowledge helps people innovate, make informed decisions, and decipher real challenges (Kostic, 2019). Scientific knowledge is disheveled with science, especially in the development of discoveries: It is supposed that objectivity and honesty help a sociologist make chary observations and assess the findings. Objectivity is associated with precision and accounts of how things function today. The concept of value freedom in scientific research bases on the contingents that the scientist defies tenets from influencing the scientific process. Notably, the researchers' beliefs, wishes, and ideas should not interfere with the process. In a nutshell, when scientific knowledge is said to be value-free, it merely means that sociology might and ought to be scientific. The critique will determine whether scientific knowledge is entirely objective and value-free in the modern world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Generalized Conclusions

The scientific knowledge statement is objective because ideas and hypotheses are included in an experiment; even with supporting data, it is hard to substantiate a hypothesis (Kostic, 2019). Most sociologists yearn to get the answers that they want rather than based on objectivity. Scientific knowledge is progressive; one finding points to another; this indicates that sociologists do not answer every question. It is unfounded to settle that scientific knowledge is entirely objective, yet it embraces assumptions. Even though those conventions are evidence-based, theories and hypotheses developed will not provide answers to every question. Unlike in natural science, where predictability is high, there is low certainty in social science. Scientific knowledge is characterized by generalized conclusions that affect the accuracy and objectivity of the process. Prescribed conditions carried out repeatedly slights dynamism, which can compromise precision. The ethical neutrality of scientific knowledge would pave the way for casual recollections influenced by societal values. In this case, the sociologist/ researcher prevent own ideas/values from altering the study, and as a result, the pronouncement, ‘scientific knowledge is value-free,’ arises.

When one says moral judgments do not have a place in scientific knowledge, the question that arises is, is it realistic that the latter value-free basing on the facts produced? According to Hilary Putnam, epistemic value defines scientific knowledge (Kingsmith and Von-Bargen, 2018, p.215-234). However, the philosopher acknowledged the use of judgment in the scientific process. Some evidence-based theories are irrelevant and unreasonable. Social science embraces simplicity, practicality, coherence, and explanatory adequacy but does not reckon that sociologists' variance can involve values. The degree of satisfaction and different intelligent designs in a scientific process is multidimensional. As a result, uncertainty about scientific knowledge comes into play, thus opposing epistemic values. When skepticism and conflicting positions materialize, reasonableness is lost. Consequently, this becomes a concern of value rather than an issue of objectivity.

Sociologists

Right-wing politics has brought matters into perspective, proving positivist sociologists such as Emile Durkheim and Auguste Comte that sociology is not value-free (Kingsmith and Von-Bargen, 2018, p. 215-234). The positivists based their argument on society's law and societal systems while likening with value freedom with objectivity. According to the right-wing value freedom in sociology is mere propaganda. David Marsland's use of Marxism ideology was pronounced exaggerative because it snubbed the benefits of capitalism. Habitually, sociologists disregard objective description and truthfulness because they are influenced by modern sociology's partial nature (Tetrault, 2019). Consistent with Marsland argument that sociological account focuses more on division, inequity, exploitation, and job dissatisfaction instead of the main aspects of capitalism. In this regard, one would doubt whether sociology aims to disregard the individual values and social values entirely.

Basing on the concept of bifurcation of consciousness, scientific knowledge in the modern world is not value-free. Feminism and the masculine perspective create a divided society with a dominant group and a subordinate group. Feminism is a sociological subfield associated with separation and alienation (Smith, 1990). If scientific knowledge, sociology included is value-free, men would not be used to define psychological illness, success amongst others. When women's experiences in society are disregarded, the sociological perspective becomes questionable: Women experience shape sociology in equal proportions with men (Smith, 1990). There is no ideological justification that male-stream sociology is value-free; thus, sociology loses its relevance by subordination practices, partiality, and creating the impression that women are a second class group in society. If scientific knowledge sociology, especially where social sciences are involved, is objective and value-free, radical views alleging biasness would not exist: An ideal scientific knowledge should be for women.

Conclusion

In summation, scientific knowledge cannot achieve ultimate objectivity and value freedom. Since one acts in response to social, economic, and political issues, scientific knowledge is objective and value-free is unsociological: The different issues shape the world in more unique ways. Subsequently, it is imperative to study what scientists leave out in their examinations. The question, ‘whose side is scientific knowledge on?’ has disregarded ideological hegemony. Tentatively, facts and values have not extinct from social science; scientists and sociologists have let their values influence their practice. Despite the scientific betrayal, it is impossible to eradicate gaps, value judgment, conflicts, and partiality.

References

Kingsmith, A.T., and Von-Bargen, J., 2018. ‘Life finds a way’: Mapping a Post-Positivist Marxian Science. Global Discourse, 8(2), pp.215-234.

Kostic, D., 2019. The Ultimate Articulation of the Account of Explanatory Understanding: Khalifa, Kareem: Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 262, pp.75.

Smith, D.E. (1990). The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge. University of Toronto Press.

Tetrault, J.E.C., 2019. What’s Hate got to do with it? Right-Wing Movements and Hate Stereotypes. Current Sociology, p.0011392119842257.