Hi,<br /><br />Sorry. Can't see why it is not showing. Please try again. There it is. Let me know. Here is also a text pasted below, just in case.&nbsp;<br />Thanks<br />Maya<br /><br />
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Being a relatively new science, biology, in addition to the ethical challenges it faces, like political science, is also faced with identity issues, and methodological orientations. One can argue that popular biological discoveries were inductive in nature, i.e., they didn&rsquo;t start with hypotheses nor their findings were widely generalizable or inferential. It was only later when the deductive approach was adapted in biology. As Meyer stated that Darwin was often known as an inductivist. Meyer also asserts that what created the deductive method was the &ldquo;growing conviction&rdquo; that nothing should be taken as an absolute truth, and that everything we arrive at knowing scientifically should be testable and provable. Concerning methods, Meyer describe that what physical scientists has &ldquo;arrogantly&rdquo; suggested that experiment is the only method of science, found untrue. While experiment can be the only appropriate method in medicine, biology showed us that different methods can be more appropriate than experiment in some studies, such as living systems or organic diversity that can best studied for example by &ldquo;teleonomic process&rdquo;. (Meyer 1982). Additionally, Meyer stresses that even descriptive analysis is required even for experimental methods. Even more provocative is what Meyer suggested that the experimental and comparative methods are not really that different, as they both incorporate data gathering and observation. Meyer argues that physical science and biology are connected because they are equivalent of each other in terms of conceptual framework and both find places in each other&rsquo;s sphere.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Equally, one can argue that biology comes into play in political science, especially in the study of political behavior. Like politics, biological events are unpredictable and don&rsquo;t have universal laws, thus generalization is of a probabilistic nature. &ldquo;instead of formulating laws, biologists usually organize their generalizations into framework of concepts&rdquo; (Meyer, p:43).</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Ethics posed as a problem in science, particularly in the evolution biology, as the latter&rsquo;s findings and interpretations are often in contrast with traditional and religious values, as it did during Darwin&rsquo;s times. &nbsp;Ethics can be a barrier even in philosophy, and politics. Ancient thinkers such as Ibn Rushd, the philosopher, physician, mathematician, and astronomer, as in the case with tens of other Islamic thinkers, who had to face tremendous hardship and atrocious death penalty because of their scientific approach in dealing with questions about the universe and creatures that contradicted with the religious belief.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Unlike religion, science offers a systematic approach to study our existence, that can explain a phenomenon with a testable proof. Consequently, both philosophy and science are challenged by mysticism, which poses an ethical barrier to the extension of manmade models and theories. Nonetheless, science, whether it is natural or social, should proceed in its inquiry of truth&mdash;the ultimate end of all sciences.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Those who want to transfer the discipline into something completely different than its original self, may be better off finding themselves in pursuing something else other than social science. There is nothing wrong with someone who after years of studying social science, find himself relate more to algebra or biology or chemistry. What is wrong however, is trying to alter what they come to study, to make it look like what they like.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Those who suggest that only by applying models of natural science, politics can be understood better, and can be better transferred to generations, are deforming the purpose of studying politics instead of advancing it. Applying algorithm to test the theory of democracy doesn&rsquo;t necessarily make democracy a drug. Likewise, just because you keep adding garlic to your cooking pasta, doesn&rsquo;t make it Italian.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>