Sociology, asked by suzy55, 1 year ago

Explain the relationship between theory and paradigm in about 500 words
Help me!!!pliz ans me
but plizzz ans only if u know​

Answers

Answered by Swaroop2sky
1

welcome to my answer

⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬⏬

The Religious and Scientific modes of thinking are two mutually exclusive approaches to dealing with

experience and reality.

The religious mode of thinking is characterised by holding as true a set of immutable statements about

reality. These are the religious core beliefs or the religion’s credo. Experience and evidence is interpreted

to uphold these core beliefs. So it is natural for Christian fundamentalists to believe the fossil history is an

attempt by the Devil to lead the true believers astray.

The scientific mode of thinking is characterised by holding that any statements about reality are

provisional and that these statements or hypothesis may be refuted by evidence and experience. So even

though people might say, "this is a scientific truth", what they mean is that this is the theory that is agreed

to be most applicable by most scientists. So, before the 1970's most scientists would hold that the

continents on earth were immutable. However, geological evidence overturned this theory and now most

scientists accept tectonic plate theory and that the continents drift over time.

There is no contradiction with some scientists holding religious beliefs. All they are doing is partitioning

the world of experience between those aspects subject to religious truths and those aspects that are

amenable to the scientific method. As long as these do not overlap there is no contradiction. So, if you

make the assumption that God initiated creation and set up the rules of physics, that is perfectly fine.

The so-called pseudosciences of creationism and intelligent design (ID) are attempts by people with a

religious mode of thinking to apply this to a field of study or 'ology'. Clearly, this is not science and should

not be confused with the scientific method or the scientific paradigm.

ID is just a failure in imagination. Proponents claim that because they cannot construct a sequence of

events that leads to some specific complex forms or behaviour, this shows that it is the work of a designer,

a.k.a. God. In the religious mode of experience, there is no need to demonstrate God exists if you make the

existence of God one of the core tenets. It would be much more intellectually honest if ID adherents would

just admit the belief in God as a core tenet rather than try to take on the semblance of science!

Even in scientific circles, people apply a form of religious thinking. The accepted orthodoxy may well

appear to be supported by adherents almost with a religious zeal. An explanation of this may be found in

Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫⏫

Mark as BRAINLIEST answer

Similar questions