Scientific Theory

1 Scientific Theory Comparison of the Scientific, Falsification, and Paradigm Shift Theories Various scientists have contributed to the scientific theories, including Francis Bacon, who contributed to Scientific Method, Karl Popper, who introduced the Falsification Theory, and Thomas Kuhn. The latter contributed to the Paradigm Shift Theory. The theories of these individuals had the objective of defining a better understanding of how nature works. The Scientific Theory of Francis Bacon provides a way of testing or refining hypotheses through observation. Goodstein (2011) notes Bacon’s idea that "science proceeds through the collection of observations without prejudice.” Bacon believed that science purely entails processes. Similar to Bacon’s theory, the Falsification Theory utilizes observation to prove prejudice, theory, or hypothesis. The Paradigm Shift Theory by Thomas Kuhn is also based on the world's observation to determine how science works.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2 Contrasts of the Scientific, Falsification, and Paradigm Shift Theories The Scientific Theory of Francis Bacon explained the science in three steps, beginning from facts’ description, their classification into three categories, and lastly, rejection of anything having no connection with the phenomenon in question. In contrast to the Scientific Theory, Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Shift Theory disagreed with the view of science as development-byaccumulation (McLeod, 2020). The idea helps that accumulation of facts without theory would eventually cause linear progress of science. According to McLeod (2020), Kuhn concluded that science does not progress in stages based on neutral observations. The Scientific Theory of Bacon excludes any prejudice or preconception, while Karl Popper’s Falsification Theory provides that all science begins from discrimination (Goodstein, 2011). Kuhn's paradigm is the theory of science that entails an agreed-upon set of language, methods, assumptions, and all other performing science requirements (Goodstein, 2011). Falsification and Scientific theories do not have such agreed-upon assumptions or methods. Unlike Popper’s skeptical theorist or Kuhn’s interested observer, an observer of Bacon's view is impartial and disinterested.

Why some consider forensic science as "Junk Science."

Despite the contributions that science and its works have presented to the world, some individuals consider forensic science as junk science. Forensic analysis has helped detectives and investigators tie several criminals to crimes based on certain conclusions and observations of the crime scene. However, not everyone agrees with forensic analysis; thus, they refer to it as junk science; this may be because forensic scientists do not have adequate proof that ties an individual to a crime. Case (2018) reports from a finding of the National Academy of Science (NAS) that forensic scientists have failed to indicate, with a high level of certainty, any connection between evidence and a particular individual through a rigorous method with high capacity and

3 consistency. Moreover, many people may refer to forensic science as junk since the forensic officers may conclude single evidence while omitting other evidence contradicting their assumptions.

Forensic science has also led to several wrongful convictions since specific crime labs may be victims of scandals that prevent them from providing accurate results. Segura and Smith (2019) report that the FBI scandals became alarming in 2015, where forensic hair analysts erred in their statements when testifying, leading to wrongful death penalties. The realization of erroneous forensic reports and scandals has exonerated many convicts, raising more questions over forensic science's validity. For example, Keith Howard served 33 years in prison for a criminal conviction of rape and murder due to faulty bite mark evidence. Due to such occurrences, many individuals have referred to forensic analysis as junk science.

4 References Case, A. (2018). On Junk Science, Pop Forensics and Crime Fiction. CrimeReads. Retrieved 12 December 2020, from https://crimereads.com/on-junk-science-pop-forensics-and-crimefiction/.

Goodstein, D. (2011). "How Science Works. National Research Council. 2011. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved 12 December 2020, from https://www.nap.edu/read/13163/chapter/4 McLeod, S. A. (2020). Thomas Kuhn - Science as a Paradigm. Simply Psychology. Retrieved 12 December 2020, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Kuhn-Paradigm.html Segura, L., & Smith, J. (2019). Ten Years After a Landmark Study Blew the Whistle on Junk Science, the Fight Over Forensics Rages On. The Intercept. Retrieved 12 December 2020, from https://theintercept.com/2019/05/05/forensic-evidence-aafs-junk-science/.