This statement focuses on 'science' in comparison to other areas of knowledge. The statement suggests the problem of induction is a probable factor present in justifying the contrasts of science from other areas of knowledge. Falsification and verification are used in science to present theories with high degree of probability.1 By suggesting all conclusions to be provisional the statement conveys all things are relative to, or dependent upon, something else. Scientists use inductive reasoning to hold and test theories. For example Newton's third law, where every action holds a reaction.2 If Newton's third law holds in all observed studies, it becomes universally true. Though if another study was to take place how can we be sure if Newton's third law was to hold true.

The statement provokes the belief one holds for 'science' as it harms the objectivity and certainty that it appears to give to us.3 This is so because science initially becomes the pure fact since inductive reasoning is used, but one believes 'science' as it is supported by expert opinion. This is much like for example an advertisement promoting toothpaste with support from a renown dentist. An arising thought comes to play as the statement potentially undermines science and all that bases upon scientific knowledge.4 Could Michael Shermer possibly imply that other areas of knowledge may harbor a higher certainty of conclusions than science.5 Potentially ethics, history, and the Arts. Mathematics is not brought into discussion as certainty is well implemented whence this area of knowledge is studied. This is well apparent since if one was to ask another what he/she was most certain of they would most likely answer; 2+2=4.6 Howbeit what makes science any more provisional than the other ways of knowledge. To some extent all knowledge becomes provisional, except for mathematics. This becomes apparent whence different ways of knowing are brought to hand.

Apropos science a comparison of Human and Natural science is required. Natural science relates to the outside world with observations and experiments. The science of nature is arguably structured and mechanistic, for instance the properties of a substance in the periodic table.7 Here we can see how mathematical knowledge gives more certainty to scientific conclusions. While Human sciences  is based around the behavior of humans.8 To some extent this is more provisional than Natural science, as behavior may vary by influence of cultural diversity, some parts of the world wear shoes indoors whilst this becomes potentially peculiar or disrespectful in different ethnical groups. Also rather provisional is Ethics, a system of moral principles. Moral reasoning is the individual practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do.9 For example I do like spinach/ I do not like spinach, the moral dilemma becomes some what of taste. But tastes are not of interest in what is right or wrong, value judgments are therefore used.10 Providing why a subjective reason to 'taste' is decided.11 Unlike science, ethics are often not universally recognized to a singular prospect. An intriguing idea is if a politician is to follow a populaces' needs or to use the populace for attaining votes to stay in power thereafter making decisions based on their own political needs.12 Fortunately it seems as science preserves us from the sort of relativism found within ethics. Science is able to hold a sense of common understanding as long as induction is successive.

The nature of history is not simply concerned with describing the past, but also with explaining it.13 Additionally history too is provisional as accounts of the past change. Cultural and national biases pursue a subjective path, where past is potentially changed due to the manipulation of the present.14 Also the fact which pertains history to only a highly subjective area of knowledge is to what degree is something historical. History is a selection of a selection.15 To some extent this shows how assumptions can drive our conclusions. In turn this may parallel induction used by science. For example all metals expand when heated.1617 But this may not be true if new metals are observed and tested. This is potentially where science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing. Science assimilates new knowledge with further in depth observation until a new induction replaces the previous. The provisional nature of historical knowledge leads to national/cultural/personal conflict because of its capability to change past through subjective thinking.18 Fortunately I find this contrasts science. Further, assumptions and prejudices are nonexistent in science.

Little can be said for distinguishing science and the arts. Though much can be stated for the arts for itself. Without the arts life would seem cold, grey, and dull. Surprisingly, “great works of art make the familiar strange and make the strange familiar.”.19 I find the arts as provisional impressions, much of its way of knowing is found through perception and emotion, a clear example is impressionism where visual brush strokes accompany human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles.20 Soon after the development of impressionism in the visual arts analogous movements in other arts too emerge, impressionist music and literature.21 Though there is no such of a tradition of great arts, the arts maintain an evolutionary position.22 Similarly as if an induction of science is falsified and a new induction is presented. Though in the arts area of knowledge the previous beliefs or evolutionary status is not labeled to falsification but simply another link in the chain, neither wrong nor right, merely humans provisional impression at a peculiar time.

In the evaluation of the statement a second-order question comes to mind; was Michael Shermer intending to undermine science and for what potential reason?23 A possible reason to intentionally undermine science is to represent other areas of knowledge, to not only become dogmatic. One has to be in thought of themselves, open-minded, and eager to question everything. Over the discussion and comparison amongst the areas of knowledge to science, I had found all knowledge to conditionally be 'provisional'. An assumption can be derived from the question brought up; “everybody is permitted to reach their own 'provisional conclusions and we have to get along somehow.”.24 Excluding mathematics, there are no right or wrong answers. There are no answers besides ones decision of  answers in comparison to themselves.25

Word count: 1202

This statement focuses on 'science' in comparison to other areas of knowledge. The statement suggests the problem of induction is a probable factor present in justifying the contrasts of science from other areas of knowledge. Falsification and verification are used in science to present theories with high degree of probability.1 By suggesting all conclusions to be provisional the statement conveys all things are relative to, or dependent upon, something else. Scientists use inductive reasoning to hold and test theories. For example Newton's third law, where every action holds a reaction.2 If Newton's third law holds in all observed studies, it becomes universally true. Though if another study was to take place how can we be sure if Newton's third law was to hold true.

The statement provokes the belief one holds for 'science' as it harms the objectivity and certainty that it appears to give to us.3 This is so because science initially becomes the pure fact since inductive reasoning is used, but one believes 'science' as it is supported by expert opinion. This is much like for example an advertisement promoting toothpaste with support from a renown dentist. An arising thought comes to play as the statement potentially undermines science and all that bases upon scientific knowledge.4 Could Michael Shermer possibly imply that other areas of knowledge may harbor a higher certainty of conclusions than science.5 Potentially ethics, history, and the Arts. Mathematics is not brought into discussion as certainty is well implemented whence this area of knowledge is studied. This is well apparent since if one was to ask another what he/she was most certain of they would most likely answer; 2+2=4.6 Howbeit what makes science any more provisional than the other ways of knowledge. To some extent all knowledge becomes provisional, except for mathematics. This becomes apparent whence different ways of knowing are brought to hand.

Apropos science a comparison of Human and Natural science is required. Natural science relates to the outside world with observations and experiments. The science of nature is arguably structured and mechanistic, for instance the properties of a substance in the periodic table.7 Here we can see how mathematical knowledge gives more certainty to scientific conclusions. While Human sciences  is based around the behavior of humans.8 To some extent this is more provisional than Natural science, as behavior may vary by influence of cultural diversity, some parts of the world wear shoes indoors whilst this becomes potentially peculiar or disrespectful in different ethnical groups. Also rather provisional is Ethics, a system of moral principles. Moral reasoning is the individual practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do.9 For example I do like spinach/ I do not like spinach, the moral dilemma becomes some what of taste. But tastes are not of interest in what is right or wrong, value judgments are therefore used.10 Providing why a subjective reason to 'taste' is decided.11 Unlike science, ethics are often not universally recognized to a singular prospect. An intriguing idea is if a politician is to follow a populaces' needs or to use the populace for attaining votes to stay in power thereafter making decisions based on their own political needs.12 Fortunately it seems as science preserves us from the sort of relativism found within ethics. Science is able to hold a sense of common understanding as long as induction is successive.

Little can be said for distinguishing science and the arts. Though much can be stated for the arts for itself. Without the arts life would seem cold, grey, and dull. Surprisingly, “great works of art make the familiar strange and make the strange familiar.”.19 I find the arts as provisional impressions, much of its way of knowing is found through perception and emotion, a clear example is impressionism where visual brush strokes accompany human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles.20 Soon after the development of impressionism in the visual arts analogous movements in other arts too emerge, impressionist music and literature.21 Though there is no such of a tradition of great arts, the arts maintain an evolutionary position.22 Similarly as if an induction of science is falsified and a new induction is presented. Though in the arts area of knowledge the previous beliefs or evolutionary status is not labeled to falsification but simply another link in the chain, neither wrong nor right, merely humans provisional impression at a peculiar time.