Psychology

The aim of this paper is to post a reply on the two paragraphs that were written by another person whose identity is not known to the writer. The two paragraphs of concern in this paper are both untitled but are connected by the idea of expressing criticisms on the manner by which scientists arrive at their conclusions with the assumption that these conclusions are made not solely in accordance to empirical research but also in the cultural influences and personal motives of the scientists. The first paragraph is hinged on the notion that despite the scientific nature of research investigation, scientists are still human beings who are capable, and are allowed by their humane limitations, to change their beliefs regarding scientific theories whenever certain portions of his or her supported theory are questioned by other scientists. The second paragraph, on the other hand, talked about the idea that scientists tend to disprove existing theories because they are driven by their desire to compete for the recognition of being the first one to discover specific findings. Upon reading these concepts, I had the perception that the writer of these paragraphs is a pessimistic, traditional, very judgmental, and very skeptical kind of person. This is because of the fact that this person was able to give negative remarks about the manner by which scientists are able to formulate theories and laws without considering the numerous contributions that these people has given our modern world today. The writer of the two paragraphs appears to be a person who gives overstretched analysis of the unconfirmed negative nature of a situation but has failed to recognize the positive side of the issue.

Although it is true that scientists, despite their great knowledge and academic achievements, are still restrained by their human limitations, it is not proper to say that they are the kind of people who will insist to acknowledge a false claim just because they are the author of the said false idea. In line with the statement of Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, when he said that the importance of the scientists in the development of Britains economy, healthcare, industry and overall progress of the nation should never be undermined for they are the substrate that will dictate the future status of their country in the years to come (Webb, 2006), we too should also learn to value and recognize the importance of our scientists. Hence, I completely disagree with the concepts laid in the two paragraphs because I believe that scientists are able to come out with their theories after the completion of critically and empirically executed scientific experiments and other investigations, findings which are designed to benefit the humankind provided that man will not abuse the usage of these discoveries.