Science as a “way of knowing” differs from art, religion, and philosophy in that

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks how science as a “way of knowing” differs from disciplines like art, religion, and philosophy.

First, consider the statement provided in the answer field: science limits its search to the natural world (empirical evidence). This captures a core hallmark of science: its commitment to empirical investigation and naturalistic explanations that can be observed, tested, and potentially falsified.

Now, without an explicit list of answer choices to evaluate each one individually, we can still reason about why this statement correctly differentiates science:
- Empirical evidence: Science relies on data gathered through observation, experiments, measurement, and repeatable testing. This contrasts with approaches in art, religion, and philosophy that may rely on subjective interpretation, revelation, metaphysical assumptions, or rational argument without direct testability.
- Natural world focus: Science seeks naturalistic explanations for phenomena, avoiding appeals to supernatural causes. This distinguishes it from some religious or spiritual perspectives that invoke deity or transcendent realities, and from certain philosophical positions that may explore abstract ideals without empirical constraint.
- Testability and falsifiability: While not every scientific claim is directly falsified, the methodology emphasizes hypotheses that can be tested and potentially disproven, which is a practical criterion not always central in art or religion.

For completeness, it helps to reflect on what science is not addressing in the same way:
- Art often emphasizes interpretation, expression, and aesthetic experience rather than empirical verification.
- Religion may center on faith, sacred texts, and spiritual meaning that are not easily subjected to empirical testing.
- Some branches of philosophy explore foundational questions using logical reasoning and thought experiments, which may not rely on empirical evidence in the same way science does.

Even though we lack the other answer choices to compare directly, the given statement effectively captures the distinctive boundary that science maintains: a focus on natural, observable, and testable phenomena grounded in empirical evidence. This delineation helps explain how science operates differently from art, religion, and philosophy in its approach to knowledge.

In sum, the key differentiator is science’s empirical, natural-world focus and its commitment to evidence that can be observed and tested, setting it apart from domains that prioritize interpretation, faith, or purely rational argument without empirical verification.

BIOL-10-40857 Week 1 Quiz

Science as a “way of knowing” differs from art, religion, and philosophy in that

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Question at position 41 Karl PopperThomas KuhnDavid HumeJohn LockeMaryam Jameelah

位置1的问题 A way in which scientific questions are different than philosophical ones is that the scientific questions involve more conceptual analysis and require more than observation and experimentation for their solution.FalseTrue

Why is science correlated with systematicity, according to Bird?

According to Laplace et al., which of the following are ways in which the conceptual clarification of scientific terms provided by philosophers can improve science? (Check BOTH that apply)

The Cuttler reading states the postmodernist-inductive method is the primary way scientific researchers use theories.

Jaggar argues that it is possible for scientists to cast aside their emotions and value judgments, and to perform their work completely dispassionately.

In this essay, Harding defends the claim that modern science is culturally-neutral, and does not have any trace of Western culture in it.

小说《三体》中“科学边界”组织致力于探讨的主要学术问题是：

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单