Skinner asserts that science, and the common view of science, has been tarnished. Explain his evidence for saying this.

2. Skinner asserts that science, and the common view of science, has been tarnished. Explain his evidence for saying this.

Skinner asserts that science, and the common view of science, has been tarnished. Explain his evidence for saying this.

Introduction

Skinner asserts that science, and the common view of science has been tarnished. He gives several examples of what he considers to be the claim that science is not just a collection of facts, but also values and morals. The first example is about censorship. Essentially, Skinner is arguing that there was a time when scientists made pronouncements about what should be censored or not, which led to self-censorship on the part of scientists. He cites an example where one scientist said that if he saw a picture of a woman breastfeeding, it would have interrupted his thought process. This led him to keep such pictures out of his research notebooks

Skinner asserts that science, and the common view of science has been tarnished. He gives several examples of what he considers to be the claim that science is not just a collection of facts, but also values and morals.

Skinner also asserts that science, and the common view of science has been tarnished. He gives several examples of what he considers to be the claim that science is not just a collection of facts, but also values and morals.

In one example, Skinner cites censorship: “During World War II, chemists at the University of Chicago were asked to develop an insecticide so powerful that it would kill silkworms on contact alone.” The chemist who was assigned this task was told that if he didn’t succeed within a certain time frame it would be considered treasonous (he succeeded). This incident led him (and other scientists) to self-censorship due to fear of repercussions from superiors or colleagues if they disagreed with government policies or findings.[4]

Another instance involves self-censorship: “Scientists have often been reluctant or unable even after years of research experience in their field; sometimes because they do not want their findings challenged by outsiders; sometimes because they fear losing grants from granting agencies such as NSF (National Science Foundation) which provide funding for university research projects.”[5]

The first example is about censorship. Essentially, Skinner is arguing that there was a time when scientists made pronouncements about what should be censored or not, which led to self-censorship on the part of scientists. He cites an example where one scientist said that if he saw a picture of a woman breastfeeding, it would have interrupted his thought process. This led him to keep such pictures out of his research notebooks.

The first example is about censorship. Essentially, Skinner is arguing that there was a time when scientists made pronouncements about what should be censored or not, which led to self-censorship on the part of scientists. He cites an example where one scientist said that if he saw a picture of a woman breastfeeding, it would have interrupted his thought process. This led him to keep such pictures out of his research notebooks.

He argues that this type of behavior is dangerous because it inhibits scientific progress and prevents new ideas from being introduced into the world by other people who may disagree with them and want their own opinions heard instead (or at least published).

Another example was described as follows: “Any scientific endeavor in which it’s assumed that our criticisms are valid.” (Skinner) This further implies that scientists would support certain agendas even if they had evidence against their claims.

Another example was described as follows: “Any scientific endeavor in which it’s assumed that our criticisms are valid.” (Skinner) This further implies that scientists would support certain agendas even if they had evidence against their claims.

If you look at this statement closely, it seems to say that science is a process where people can disagree and argue about what they think should happen next. The idea here is that there are no right answers or wrong answers; instead, there are multiple ways to look at things based on different perspectives and experiences.

This approach allows scientists to express their ideas openly without fear of being attacked by other scientists who disagree with those views–and it also allows them to criticize each other’s work if needed!

His final example expands on this last point showing the damage it can cause and saying how it makes us worse off than if we didn’t cling to these ideas as our only source of meaning in life.Takeaway: Skinner argues that science has been tarnished by people who want it to conform with a certain set of beliefs instead of doing what’s best for society

You may have heard the claim that science is not just a collection of facts, but also values and morals. This is something Skinner considers to be untrue, because science doesn’t deal with these things directly.

Skinner gives several examples of what he considers to be the claim that science is not just a collection of facts, but also values and morals:

• The claim that there are no absolute truths in biology or physics; instead each person’s interpretation is valid unless proven otherwise (in other words it’s subjective).

Conclusion

His final example expands on this last point showing the damage it can cause and saying how it makes us worse off than if we didn’t cling to these ideas as our only source of meaning in life.