of an essay on uses of science in daily life?
of science in our daily life uses ..
Natural philosophers, such as Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, RobertHooke, and Robert Boyle, sometimes appealed to supernatural agents intheir natural philosophy (which we now call “science”).Still, overall there was a tendency to favor naturalistic explanationsin natural philosophy. This preference for naturalistic causes mayhave been encouraged by past successes of naturalistic explanations,leading authors such as Paul Draper (2005) to argue that the successof methodological naturalism could be evidence for ontologicalnaturalism. Explicit methodological naturalism arose in thenineteenth century with the X-club, a lobby group for theprofessionalization of science founded in 1864 by Thomas Huxley andfriends, which aimed to promote a science that would be free fromreligious dogmas. The X-club may have been in part motivated by thedesire to remove competition by amateur-clergymen scientists in thefield of science, and thus to open up the field to full-timeprofessionals (Garwood 2008).
How do we use science in everyday life? | My Essay Point
Several typologies characterize the interaction between science andreligion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes betweenthree views: the independence view (no overlap between science andreligion), the contact view (some overlap between the fields), and aunion of the domains of science and religion; within those views herecognizes further subdivisions, e.g., the contact can be in the formof conflict or harmony. The most influential model of therelationships between science and religion remains Barbour’s(2000): conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. Subsequentauthors, as well as Barbour himself, have refined and amended thistaxonomy. However, others (e.g., Cantor and Kenny 2001) have arguedthat it is not useful to understand past interactions between bothfields. For one thing, it focuses on the cognitive content ofreligions at the expense of other aspects, such as rituals and socialstructures. Moreover, there is no clear definition of what conflictmeans (evidential or logical). The model is not as philosophicallysophisticated as some of its successors, such as Stenmark’s(2004). Nevertheless, because of its enduring influence, it is stillworthwhile to discuss this taxonomy in detail.