“Progression of Science,”

The first annotated article is from The New Yorker on November 1st, 2057. The article’s title is “Progression of Science,” and the opening line is: “The only thing constant is a transition,” a statement that most philosophers of science would identify with, particularly in light of the discovery of aliens. The article’s core focus is the evolution of experimental methods for evaluating hypotheses. The article explains how, in the recent past, scientists used a Hypothetical-Deductive approach (HD) to test scientific hypotheses using exact and reliable measurements and wanted to validate novel predictions if new ontological elements were introduced. This was followed by evolution into the “ET Method” with the coming of our Extra Terrestrial Neighbors. The ET method involves basing congruency to the alien’s data to evaluate a theory.

I like several things that the article has elaborated concerning the progression of science from ET to HD ara. To start with, the essay states that ”Our Neighbors” have altered the way we collect accepted theories (the scientific mosaic) which I agree with and the change has happened in a very short duration. This has resulted in a change in the scientific method which is used to analyze and verify how accurate the proposed theory is. The essay also states that laws of scientific change were followed in the abandonment of the HD method which is true because this resulted in the acceptance of the new ET method. I also agree with the essay on the fact that the paper ”The death of Science” fails to include the laws of scientific change in its evaluation of the acceptance of the ET method

The article also discusses the 2nd law of scientific change- Theory Acceptance which I agree with since the author writes that in previous times all proposed theories utilized the HD method by confirming novel predictions, and by being precise and accurate. I also like what the essay has concerning the 0th law of Compatibility. This is because even though old elements of the mosaic were removed, they were replaced with many others hence allowing compatibility amongst various theories. I also agree with the statement that shift to the ET method caused a change in the demarcation criteria for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. This statement in the essay is true because initially, the HD method was the only one used to evaluate theories but with the introduction of the ET method, it became absolved allowing a basis for comparison.

On the other hand, there are several statements in the article that I disagree with concerning progression of science. To begin with, the article states that elements of the mosaic were in a fairly stable state in 2047 and the introduction of the alien theory altered with the balance. I disagree with this because the new physical theory was not adopted immediately. It was subjected to rigorous scrutiny before being accepted, and in addition to that, the HD method was also used to evaluate chemical agential morphodynamics and other theories. This, therefore, indicates that the introduction of N-theory did not alter the mosaic balance. Secondly, the author of the article writes about the 1st Law of Scientific Inertia. I don’t agree with this law since it involved abandoning the old elements of the mosaic and new theories were introduced with the introduction of the aliens. Despite the fact that HD method which was thought to be ineffective was used to accept the new theories, HD method was still disregarded and replaced with the ET method.

In conclusion, scientific change is inevitable. The essay provides the historical, scientific method shift from HD to ET.I agree with the author that the arrival of the aliens allowed science to progress logically and brought into place new theories. When the ”Neighbors” came to earth, science progressed quickly, but reasonably. However, the old elements of the mosaic should not be disregarded entirely, but instead, they should be merged with the new theories to allow science progression that is inclusive and innovative.

The second article that will be annotated is the essay on the Noumena App. The essay is mainly based on the KAN+ website, which claims that their app, Noumena uses ”an augmented-reality experience to gain access to mind-independent access” and ”cutting-edge algorithms allow the technology to correct the failings and misperceptions of normal human sensation and filter out the biases and subjectivity of human theories. The issue of under scrutiny according to the article is the fact that the central processing system for sensations, theories, and algorithms like the one developed in the Noumena app is the human mind.

I agree with several facts in the essay that question the claim of the KAN+ website concerning the Noumena App ability to use augmented reality experience to gain access to the independent mind. The first thing that I agree with what is written on the essay is that there is no guarantee the results the application portray is the absolute truth. This is because it will be difficult to verify the app since there is no available tool to perform that task. I also agree on the fact that even if there was a scientific tool that the app could be used on, it is also developed from the human sensation. Therefore the algorithms that will run in the Noumena app will also be using human sensations since it’s developed from the human mind creating bias.

Secondly, the claims in the KAN+ website about the capabilities of Noumena App is the not the absolute truth based on the theory of landlessness and problems associated with sensations. I agree with the statement that when using sensations, one cannot precisely determine if perceptions are an accurate reflection of the world. The app is also questionable since it relies on empirical science rather than formal science, therefore, making use of existing theories which might not be a true reflection of the reality at hand. The app also relies on synthetic propositions hence there is no certainty since it uses empirical science which is fallible.

The essay questions the absolute functionality and independence of the Noumena App since it relies on empirical science. I agree with this opinion since empirical propositions are fallible. This is mainly because it’s reliant on sensation and it is well known that it is easy to manipulate perceptions and sensations using the brain. In normal scenarios, the brain performs the task of inferring what is happening in the environment, this therefore results in adjustment of our sensory inputs.

However, there are various ideas in the essay about the functioning of the Noumena App that I disagree with. To start with, even though sensation is subject to change in regards to what is happening in the environment, a sensation is not hallucinations and illusions. Another point in the essay that I have a different opinion on is concerning the claim that filtered information is processed by the brain no matter what. In my opinion, even though the brain acts as the central source of sensation, the capability of the Noumena App to filter sensations should not be ruled out. It might not be 100% functionality, but at least the application can also serve the same purpose.

In addition to that, I also disagree with the statement on the essay regarding human sensation and computer in relation to the Noumena App. The essay indicates that the app is built on accepted theories and that it does not address the theory of ladeness. The argument that the app is faulty based on the fact that computer science is formal but on the other hand human sensation is an empirical science is not conclusive. I partially disagree with this statement since it portrays that all theories that the Noumena app operates on are s fallible. This, therefore, limits the ability of the application to provide conclusive information. I do not think that all the theories the application operates on are faulty through the strength of the hypotheses may vary based on perceptions of different groups (Hanna, 2009)

The subject that addresses the failure of the Nounema App as portrayed in their KAN+ website based on the problem of induction does not provide a basis for rejection of the application. In the essay, it is noted that the app filter out biases in sensation and theory-ladenness. This does not change the fact that assumptions underlying induction remains as fallible. In my opinion, it is not easy to evade the problem of induction. This is because, in reality, one cannot be able to observe all subjects in existence even carry out an extremely objective observation. Therefore this gives an indication that the app is not entirely faulty since the theory of ladenness has its own complications. This is because the assumption relies on observations to interpret a specific issue rather than relying on facts. Therefore, the explanation that the app is fully on default in this scenario is not comprehensive. This is because the app might reduce a few problems by using its complicated and advanced algorithms to explain the related theories to those people who are unfamiliar with (Logic Philosophers, 2010).

In conclusion, the functioning and the capability of the Noumena App as explained in their KAN+ website is subject to questioning. This is mainly because the application is developed by sensations hence creating room for the problem of sensation to still exist. In addition to that, the algorithms would also depend on the existing theories hindering verification of reality. Considering the problems the application has with induction, sensation and the theory of ladenness, the Noumena app cannot, therefore, provide us with a clear and objective view of the independent mind. The claims of KAN+ website that the app can allow an individual to experience the reality of the external world using a set of algorithms is not entirely true but in some areas the application is functional, and it can help to provide essential information. In my opinion, the application should not be faulted entirely as in the essay but additional research should be carried out to improve on the areas of weakness.

References

Hanna, R. (2009). Completing The Picture of Kant’s Metaphysics of Judgement.

Logic Philosophers. (2010). Kant:Experience and Reality.