# data[].attributes.headline
What motivates the pursuit of knowledge in this area of knowledge

# data[].attributes.subject
What motivates the pursuit of knowledge in this area of knowledge

# data[].attributes.body
In general, scientists that specialize in natural science are motivated by their curiosity of wanting to know the world. They have questions about how the world works and have the tools to possibly answer those questions, so they do everything they can to have their questions answered. That pursuit of knowledge and understanding is why they push themselves to find out what they want to know.

# data[].attributes.headline
What makes this area of knowledge (Natural Sciences) importanr?

# data[].attributes.subject
What makes this area of knowledge (Natural Sciences) importanr?

# data[].attributes.body
As we saw in the text natural science developments are constantly changing as new methods and scientific developments appear. Natural sciences have always been important for shaping the beliefs, culture, values, and space we live in. Natural sciences as the base of all other areas of knowledge and also serve as evidence and justification for knowledge concepts and questions. (Nuna e Joao)

# data[].attributes.headline
Group: Manuela, Shiny, Emma, Emanuela, Mariana, Laura

# data[].attributes.subject
Group: Manuela, Shiny, Emma, Emanuela, Mariana, Laura

# data[].attributes.body
What makes this area of of knowledge important?
This area, science, is important because it enables humans to develop technologies that will improve our productivity and therefore our production of knowledge, which will help society advance as a whole.

# data[].attributes.headline
Question: Could there be scientific problems that are currently unknown because the technology needed to reveal them doesn’t exist yet? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Question: Could there be scientific problems that are currently unknown because the technology needed to reveal them doesn’t exist yet? 

# data[].attributes.body
Yes, there could be scientific problems that are currently unknown because the technology needed to reveal them doesn't exist yet. An example of this can be seen with Ptolemy's synthesis, which at the time was regarded as something important and a "magnificent achievement", but was eventually proven wrong. Therefore, there could be scientific things that we consider as true that could be disproven due to a technological advancement that does not yet. This also means that there are some problems that we don't know of yet that might only be revealed after a new technological advancement.

By Stefano and Manoel

# data[].attributes.body
Could there be scientific problems that are currently unknown because the technology needed to reveal them doesn’t exist yet?

The most prominent scientific problems that have not been discovered are when and how a specific event occurred, material, or element  occurred. With our current technologies we have a variety of tech to form close estimates to the origins of these scientific questions; however, we do not have a precise reason or location which is due to the lack of technology.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy? (Emma, Morceguinho)

# data[].attributes.subject
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy? (Emma, Morceguinho)

# data[].attributes.body
We believe that scientific knowledge can't be free from error because reviews come from humans, and even though it can be reduced to some extent, everyone has some kind of bias that will affect their judgement and interpretation of facts as well as their objectivity (concept). Accuracy can't be guaranteed but it can be a goal that must be reached, however it can't be achieved in its entirety since error is human. Ex: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-021-00912-2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plant scientists’ research attention is skewed towards colourful, conspicuous and broadly distributed flowers - Nature Plants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the perception that plant science focuses on strictly scientific criteria, this analysis finds that there is an aesthetic bias in regards to which plants, based on certain traits, receive more research attention.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy?

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific knowledge is not free from error. Since scientists are the ones discovering and showing this knowledge to others, they are still prone to bias and mistakes meaning that the knowledge they find could be twisted because they are still human. The scientific method does allow for some accuracy and protects the knowledge we find from some biases since it does not all for subjectivity or bias. Since the scientific method requires the researcher to remain objective during the experiment and the study, it allows for some accuracy and some protection from bias and mistakes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is scientific knowledge free from error? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is scientific knowledge free from error? 

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific knowledge cannot be free from errors. Even though those types of bits of knowledge involve evidence and experimentation, it is impossible to hold full truth over something out of our control. For example, like the cell theory has its 3 main concepts, there are still some cells that are exceptions to that theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the role of the scientific community in the validation of new knowledge? (Nuna and Jõao)

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the role of the scientific community in the validation of new knowledge? (Nuna and Jõao)

# data[].attributes.body
I order for a theory, hypothesis, etc to be validated there is a variety of steps that are required to be taken by the scientific community. In order to determine the certainty, truth, and accuracy of a scientific theory a series of experiment need to be done to collect evidence, and then the data passes through a series of professionals from the community, for example peer review, before it is exposed to the public eye.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is scientific knowledge free from error? To what extent does the scientific method guarantee accuracy?

# data[].attributes.body
Scientific knowledge is not free from error. This is because there are always some misconceptions about scientific theories and not everything that is a part of scientific knowledge is 100% accurate. The scientific method can safeguard against mistakes and misconceptions, but it since it is dependent on humans, it will always be susceptible to human error. The scientific method does guarantee partial accuracy due to the fact that the technology that we have access to today is not fully developed. If it had been fully developed, we would have access to more information than we do today, and the scientific method would then guarantee accuracy. The scientific method is not always accurate as it can be affected by catchy headlines. One example of this would be that "Red Wine Reduces Breast Cancer Risk" when in reality, drinking alcohol could increases the risk of cancer.

By Manoel, Matheus, and Stefano

# data[].attributes.headline
To what degree should scientific knowledge production be regulated?

# data[].attributes.subject
To what degree should scientific knowledge production be regulated?

# data[].attributes.body
I think that scientific knowledge should be regulated to the extent that research institutions and individual scientists can predict the impact of their research. For example, if a researcher or institution is aware of particular harm that may come to humans as a result of their research they should consider the consequences. For example, if publishing the results of a study on viruses could lead to a global pandemic (Resnik &Elliot) then the institutions that funded the research, as well as the individual scientists, have a responsibility to protect the public and not publish the results. The regulation should be the responsibility of the research institution (Resnik &Elliot). However, it is not always obvious what potential consequences may result from scientific research. For example, Einstein may not have thought about every potential outcome of the discovery of atomic energy when he was first conducting his research in physics.  However, once he became aware of the possible uses of his work he did voice his opinion in favor of stockpiling uranium (https://time.com/5641891/einstein-szilard-letter/).  "Einstein urged the United States to stockpile uranium ore and begin work on its own atomic weapons." In this case, his values lead him to favor producing knowledge that could put the US at an advantage in the race to produce a nuclear weapon during war times. Therefore, it may be impossible for scientists to predict the outcomes of all their work or how their work may be used (e.g., in times of war) but if it is possible it should be a goal of science to take responsibility and consider their role as "regulators" when it comes to non-epistemic goals of their work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Einstein Feared a Nazi Atom Bomb-But Immigrants Made Sure the U.S. Got There First

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Aug. 2, 1939, Einstein signed a letter addressed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, warning that the Nazis might be developing nuclear weapons

# data[].attributes.headline
Chose an ethics KQ and respond here, refer to a RLE. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Chose an ethics KQ and respond here, refer to a RLE. 

# data[].attributes.headline
If scientific knowledge should be regulated, who is responsible for the regulations?

# data[].attributes.subject
If scientific knowledge should be regulated, who is responsible for the regulations?

# data[].attributes.body
Letter from Einstein to President Roosevelt raises questions about the relationship between the scientific community and the government during times of war. To me, this letter is an example of a time when science could not ignore "non-epistemic values" due to the potential ethical consequences of the knowledge being produced.

# data[].attributes.headline
Create a new post that answers this question and refer to a RLE. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Create a new post that answers this question and refer to a RLE. 

# data[].attributes.body
What role do paradigm shifts play in the progression of scientific knowledge (or knowledge in another AOK)?
Consider:
How was knowledge in this discipline before this change?
Are current paradigms set in stone or could they change over time?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thomas Kuhn, the well-known physicist, philosopher and historian of science, was born 94 years ago today. He went on to become an important and broad-ranging thinker, and one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century.

Kuhn's 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, transformed the philosophy of science and changed the way many scientists think about their work. But his influence extended well beyond the academy: The book was widely read - and seeped into popular culture. One measure of his influence is the widespread use of the term "paradigm shift," which he introduced in articulating his views about how science changes over time.

Inspired, in part, by the theories of psychologist Jean Piaget, who saw children's development as a series of discrete stages marked by periods of transition, Kuhn posited two kinds of scientific change: incremental developments in the course of what he called "normal science," and scientific revolutions that punctuate these more stable periods. He suggested that scientific revolutions are not a matter of incremental advance; they involve "paradigm shifts."

Talk of paradigms and paradigm shifts has since become commonplace - not only in science, but also in business, social movements and beyond. In a column at The Globe and Mail, Robert Fulford describes paradigm as "a crossover hit: It moved nimbly from science to culture to sports to business."

But what, exactly, is a paradigm shift? Or, for that matter, a paradigm?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary offers the following:

: a model or pattern for something that may be copied

: a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about

Accordingly, a paradigm shift is defined as "an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way."

More than 50 years after Kuhn's famous book, these definitions may seem intuitive rather than technical. But do they capture what Kuhn actually had in mind in developing an account of scientific change?

It turns out this question is hard to answer - not because paradigm has an especially technical or obscure definition, but because it has many. In a paper published in 1970, Margaret Masterson presented a careful reading of Kuhn's 1962 book. She identified 21 distinct senses in which Kuhn used the term paradigm. (That's right: 21.)

Consider a few examples.

First, a paradigm could refer to a special kind of achievement. Masterson quotes Kuhn, who introduces a paradigm as a textbook or classic example that is "sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity," but that is simultaneously "sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve." Writes Kuhn: "Achievements that share these two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to as 'paradigms.' "

But in other parts of the text, paradigms cover more ground. Paradigms can offer general epistemological viewpoints, like the "philosophical paradigm initiated by Descartes," or define a broad sweep of reality, as when "Paradigms determine large areas of experience at the same time."

Given this bounty of related uses, Masterson asks a provocative question:

Is there, philosophically speaking, anything definite or general about the notion of a paradigm which Kuhn is trying to make clear? Or is he just a historian-poet describing different happenings which have occurred in the course of the history of science, and referring to them all by using the same word "paradigm"?

In the end, Masterson distills Kuhn's 21 senses of paradigm into a more respectable three, and she identifies what she sees as both novel and important aspects of Kuhn's "paradigm view" of science. But for our purposes, Masterson's analysis sheds light on two questions that turn out to be related: what Kuhn meant by paradigm in the first place, and how a single word managed to assume such a broad and expansive set of meanings after being unleashed by Kuhn's book.

Of course, Kuhn can't be blamed single-handedly for the way paradigm - and its shiftier cousin - have propagated in popular culture. What he did do was provide some classic examples of the term that were sufficiently unprecedented to attract adherents away from more mundane alternatives, but sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of possibilities for others to explore. And that, I suppose, is an achievement.
Tania Lombrozo is a psychology professor at the University of California, Berkeley. She writes about psychology, cognitive science and philosophy, with occasional forays into parenting and veganism. You can keep up with more of what she is thinking on Twitter: @TaniaLombrozo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thomas Kuhn, the well-known physicist, philosopher and historian of science, was born 94 years ago today. He went on to become an important and broad-ranging thinker, and one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. Kuhn's 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, transformed the philosophy of science and changed the way many scientists think about their work.