澳洲阿德莱德论文代写:科学搜索
为了更深入地探索这两种方式，一个人首先要了解一个表是空的空间的科学假设是从哪里来的。它来源于认真的卢瑟福的“金箔实验”，期间他发现一束放射性粒子有直接穿过一片金没有分歧。通过他的观察和分析，卢瑟福认为即使是最小的粒子，原子，是空的空间。根据以前的研究结果，所有的物质是一个空白的空间，相对来说，它能够是一个单纯的表被假定为是空的空间。感知智慧，我们看到一张桌子是我们面前的一个物体，我们觉得它是一个坚实的物体。因此，我们的结论与我们的感觉是正确的，我们的结论实验。然而，客观性的哲学都是虚假的证明，由主张“真理是客观真实的事实时，条件是独立于心灵的，是不是有意识的实体或主体作出的任何判决的结果。”这意味着，科学知识是完全客观的，与我们的感知。然而，当密切关注得到了卢瑟福的结论的方式；我们可以看出实验不是从感觉如此不同。卢瑟福，事实上，用自己的视觉观察发生了什么，然后用自己的推理得出结论，他所看到的和他所感知的。这是在Immanuel Kant，他反驳客观性的纯粹理性批判解释说，“科学知识系统的现存事物的本质的知识作为我们认识他们，而不是他们自己”。因此，我们可以说，真理是绝对的，它只是我们对真理的看法是相对的吗？这是否意味着事实，这是对真理的看法，是相对的？是科学的事实，因此，仅仅是科学家的一个共识，这使得它只是一个假设，它真的是。由于科学理论不断被证实和证伪，这表明它仅仅是我们的看法改变了，而不是实际的真理本身。Ghandi曾说，“我的目的不是要跟我之前的声明一致，但要与事实一致。”他已经从真理作为自己生命的成长，所以他说，如果有人发现有两件事他写的不一致，那人会做好选择后者”。此外，一个领域的知识，科学，重叠的一种方式的了解，感知，但仍然产生什么被称为“冲突”的结果。此外，如果我们的看法发挥了关键作用，产生这两个，那么为什么是不同的看法呢？这就带来了语境的重要性。
澳洲阿德莱德论文代写:科学搜索
In order to explore these two ways of more deeply, one must first understand where the scientific assumption that a table is empty space comes from. It originates from Earnest Rutherford’s “Gold-Foil Experiment”, during which he observed that a beam of radioactive particles had passed directly through a sheet of gold without diverging. Through his observations and analysis, Rutherford concluded that even the smallest particle, the atom, is empty space. Based on the previous findings that all matter is empty space; relatively, it was able to be a mere table was assumed to be empty space. Perception-wise, we see that a table is an object in front of us and we feel that it is a solid object. Thus, what we conclude with our senses is just as correct to us as what we conclude the experimental. However, the philosophy of objectivity would prove this to be false, by the proposition that “truth is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are mind-independent-that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity or subject.” This implies that scientific knowledge is completely objective, in contrast to our perception. Yet, when looking closely to the way Rutherford’s conclusion was obtained; we can see that the experimental is not so different from the perceptional. Rutherford, in fact, used his sense of sight to observe what was happening, and then used his own reasoning to conclude what he saw and what he perceived. This is explained in the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant in which he counters objectivity by saying that, “scientific knowledge is systematic knowledge of the nature of existing things as we perceive them, rather than as they are in themselves”. Therefore, can we say that truth is absolute and it is merely our perceptions of that truth that are relative? Does this mean that facts, which are perceptions of truth, are relative? Is scientific fact, therefore, merely a consensus of the scientists, which makes it simply an assumption of what it really is. Since scientific theories have constantly been proved and disproved, this indicates that it is simply our perceptions that are changing and not the actual truth itself. Ghandi had once said, “My aim is not to be consistent with my previous statements, but to be consistent with the truth.” He had moved from truth to truth as his life progressed, so he said that if one were to find an inconsistency between any two things he had written, that the person “would do well to choose the latter”. Furthermore, an area of knowledge, science, overlaps with a way of knowing, perception; yet, both still generate what was called “conflicting” results. Moreover, if our perception played a key role in generating both, then why were the perceptions so different? This brings about the importance of context.
在阿德莱德学习遇到问题了吗？快来找ESSAYEDUCATION.帮您解决学术问题吧。点击了解 阿德莱德代写论文