" Science works because it uses a strenuous method of obtaining reliable understanding of nature”. Do you really agree?
" An attempt to force character into the preformed and relatively inflexible package that the paradigm supplies”. This can be a estimate from Thomas Kuhn, for the objectivity of science. Technology, to a certain extent, is indeed not good in obtaining reliable familiarity with nature.
There are a few keywords which will require meanings to set the benchmark for this question. Rigorous method might refer to continuous assessment and attempt to falsify present technological logics. Concerning reliable, all theories that have yet been falsified, , nor fall under the class of pseudo science will be reliable.
Consequently, I do not agree that science is successful because it utilizes a strenuous method of learning about reliable knowledge of nature.
A striking feature of doing studies that the goal is to find out what is known beforehand. This is essential in understanding the truth that science itself does not aim at obtaining the unfamiliar, but rather proving what is known. An easy analogy of science is scientific studies similar to that of solving a puzzle. The final result of the investigation is already predicted way before research is being done. What is going to happen would be issue such as the 1919 Eddington's eclipse experiment to test out whether Newton's theory of gravity or perhaps Einstein's theory of General Relativity stands. What actually happened was Eddington supported Einstein's theory and wished to prove that it was true, and therefore he unconsciously minimized his errors to obtain the right effect. Here, you observe how research does not in fact progress the moment results are forecasted before researches are done. It actually leads to scientists enhancing results of experiments to prove theories which they support either intentionally or subconsciously. With analysis results becoming edited and so frivolously, how can we continue to expect research...