Book critic/review

Description

From the book review list, select 2 and write and write a book review for each (separate documents)

– The book reports do not summarize the book. Instead, they explain how issues are framed, how evidence is used, and whether conclusions seem valid or whether there might be holes in the logic. In particular, how the book deals with the particular theme selected by the student (for the 3 reports) will be important to flesh-out.
-The three book reports should be on a similar topic and should engage with some of the same concepts / themes.
-Assume the professor is familiar with the book and jump directly into how the book engages with your selected theme (this will assist in avoiding summarization).
– Explain what is significant about the work with respect to your topic; not simply what it says.
– Each report should briefly outline the author’s biography in 1-2 sentences.
The overall point of this project is to begin engaging with the same idea across multiple sources in the field. That first annotated bibliography assignment will be very important, in that you will need to verify that you are using sources that can actually be compared.

Sample Solution

understand the difficulties of the problem which we are trying to resolve. Along these lines, Popper affirms that; this is the way one turns out to be better acquainted with one’s issues, and competent to offer a more created answer. This means that, refutation of a theory brings us nearer to the truth that is, if such theory passed such critical test it becomes clearer and more enlighten
From the above, it becomes so clear that Popper does not believe in certainty or absolute knowledge. For him, therefore, certainty is absolutely impossible. Thus, Popper admonishes us that; we need to get accustomed to the idea that, we must not see science as a body of knowledge, rather, as a body of conjectures; that is to say, as a system of guesses or hypotheses which one cannot justify in principle, but with which one operates as long as they are able to pass critical testing of which one can never justified in saying that one knows they are true or certain or even probable. Consequently, he guarantees that; “Our insight must be limited while our lack of awareness should essentially be endless.” What the above statement means is that our claims about the world are not certain, because our knowledge of the world is limited but our ignorance is unlimited.
3.2 Observation and Falsifiability
According to David Hume, it is the object of experience that imposes itself in our mind; however, Karl Popper rejects this position and rather goes with Immanuel Kant’s position which holds that it is the mind which imposed its expectations on nature. For Popper, therefore, this imaginatively invented expectation is what a scientist tests step by step.’ Popper, therefore, refused to accept the traditional inductivist position; which state that, ‘observation leads to theory’. For Popper theory comes before observation. This is because; the scientific activity is nothing more than problem-solving. A scientist when faced with difficult realities attempted to create possible explanations or theories to confront such difficulty, he does this by making speculations or conjectures after which he tries to put those speculations and conjectures into severe examination by testing them against experience to see if they correspond to the present state of affair. He succinctly expresses his position in this manner; a scientist, first of all, puts forward a hypothesis which is conjectural in nature and then, the scientist tries to observe if his hypothesis corresponds to what he has observed he does so by testing his hypothesis against experience by observ