This paper is based on my reaction to the saying of Carl Sagan, ‘at the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly contradictory attitudes—an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical analysis of all ideas, old and new’. I support his viewpoint and overall my reaction is positive towards the statement.
This post reflects on a tension in science that on one hand, it allows scientists to expand knowledge by accepting new ideas; while on the other hand, it makes scientists skeptical of novel ideas. Basically, the post significantly highlights two diverging attitudes in science. It led me back to the controversial issue of openness versus skepticism in science. Mostly, scientists rely on a current set of hypotheses because of widespread research conducted to test already proved hypotheses. The existing theories make scientists skeptical of new ideas and limit their openness. On the contrary, scientists adopt a flexible approach and they accept new ideas by seeking supporting evidence. It is because some questions cannot be answered with the existing body of knowledge which stimulates scientists to accept new ideas. Although it takes time and extensive research to formulate a new theory, the positive results of openness encourage scientists to develop this attitude.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
I strongly agree with the statement of Carl Sagan as I believe that two contradicting attitudes bring substantial changes in scientific thinking. In most of the scientific research works, scientists first develop a skeptical attitude and later opt for openness. For instance, the existing theory of plate tectonics explaining the geological forces was accepted after a long struggle. In 1912, the first evidence was presented with a skeptical analysis. Later, scientists realized that the current knowledge was not adequate to explain the geological phenomenon. Therefore, they welcomed new ideas and accepted the new theory.
To infer, the post is quite informative in understanding the opposing attitude of scientists in dealing with a natural phenomenon.
