Philosophy of Science 1021
Mark H. Dixon
20th February 2013
Umbrellaology: A Science or The Process of Data
Umbrellaology stumbles upon the ago old question of what makes something a “science”? To the writer of Umbrellaology, it is a scientific theory, which can be empirically confirmed by gathered evidence, to better understand the study of umbrellas. However, agreeing with Umbrellaology in my opinion would be doing a great disservice to the jurisdictions of a true “science” from a pseudoscience. Using my personal views, objective data, and support from such philosophers as Ziman and Popper, I will prove that Umbrellaology is not a genuine science!
To me, science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, theoretical explanation, and classification of phenomena. However, the sum is only equal to all its parts, meaning if just one of these scientific processes is missing, it cannot be qualified as a true “science”. The science must be able to exhibit empirical knowledge; based on observation and experiment, as well as a priori knowledge; depends upon reasoning. These epistemological concepts lay the groundwork for defining a science.
“A Theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice. (Popper: 41) Here is my first red flag with Umbrellaology. It does not have refutable evidence to qualify it as a science. In fact, it doesn’t even have fundamental theories or explanations. All it does is make predictions with out reasoning with collected data that cannot support those predictions in a scientific manner.
Also, Umbrellaology contains generalizations, which are only inductively investigated. Although he does not demonstrate the relationship between laws or an explanation for why such occurrences have even been observed in the first place. In my opinion, scientific laws/ theories have to be able to...