Scientific realism. Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained? " The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories.
Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism. Main features of scientific realism[edit] Scientific realism involves two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce.
According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features: Characteristic claims[edit] Sociocultural evolution. Sociocultural evolution, sociocultural evolutionism or cultural evolution are umbrella terms for theories of cultural and social evolution that describe how cultures and societies change over time. Whereas sociocultural development traces processes that tend to increase the complexity of a society or culture, sociocultural evolution also considers process that can lead to decreases in complexity (degeneration) or that can produce variation or proliferation without any seemingly significant changes in complexity (cladogenesis).[1] Sociocultural evolution can be defined as "the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form.
" Most 19th-century and some 20th-century approaches to socioculture aimed to provide models for the evolution of humankind as a whole, arguing that different societies are at different stages of social development. Introduction[edit] Raven paradox. The raven paradox suggests that both of these images contribute evidence to the supposition that all ravens are black. The raven paradox, also known as Hempel's paradox or Hempel's ravens, is a paradox arising from the question of what constitutes evidence for a statement. Observing objects that are neither black nor ravens may formally increase the likelihood that all ravens are black – even though, intuitively, these observations are unrelated.
The paradox[edit] Hempel describes the paradox in terms of the hypothesis:[2][3] (1) All ravens are black. In strict logical terms, via contraposition, this statement is equivalent to: (2) Everything that is not black is not a raven. It should be clear that in all circumstances where (2) is true, (1) is also true; and likewise, in all circumstances where (2) is false (i.e. if a world is imagined in which something that was not black, yet was a raven, existed), (1) is also false. . (3) Nevermore, my pet raven, is black. Proposed resolutions[edit] is if . If. Epistemology. Branch of philosophy concerning knowledge In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as "What do people know? ", "What does it mean to say that people know something? ", "What makes justified beliefs justified?
", and "How do people know that they know? " Etymology[edit] The etymology of the word epistemology is derived from the ancient Greek epistēmē, meaning "knowledge, understanding, skill, scientific knowledge",[7][note 1] and the English suffix -ology, meaning "the science or discipline of (what is indicated by the first element)".[9] The word "epistemology" first appeared in 1847, in a review in New York's Eclectic Magazine : The title of one of the principal works of Fichte is 'Wissenschaftslehre,' which, after the analogy of technology ... we render epistemology.[10] The word was first used to present a philosophy in English by Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier in 1854. Historical and philosophical context[edit] Contemporary historiography[edit]
Matching Person & Technology Model. The Matching Person & Technology Model organizes influences on the successful use of a variety of technologies: assistive technology, educational technology, and those used in the workplace, school, home; for healthcare, for mobility and performing daily activities. Specialized devices for hearing loss, speech, eyesight and cognition as well as general or everyday technologies are also included.
Research shows that although a technology may appear perfect for a given need, it may be used inappropriately or even go unused when critical personality preferences, psychosocial characteristics or needed environmental support are not considered. MPT process with accompanying assessment measures[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] General Cook, A.M. and Hussey, S. (2001). Specific Jump up ^ Kormann & Petronko: (2003) Crisis and Revolution in Developmental Disabilities: The Dilemma of Community Based Services. External links[edit]