What are natural scientists trying to do when they converting a statement like "It is unnatural for a same sex couple to raise a child" into a statement like this "Among species of mammals and birds where mated pairs engage in raising the young, the
e are no instances of male-male or female-female pairs raising young."?
What will be an ideal response
As scientists they are trying to make the first statement testable by converting it into a null hypothesis. The scientists may or may not have a political agenda. But that is not relevant to the scientific investigation which seeks data that could disconfirm the null hypothesis. And the disconfirmation of that null hypothesis may or may not influence policy makers. But those possible outcomes too are beyond the direct scope of the scientific investigation of that hypothesis.
You might also like to view...
The Roman Catholic church cherishes the tradition that ____ became the first bishop of Rome
a. Paul b. Peter c. John d. James
The priority humans give to efficient communication should give way to concerns about problematic vagueness and problematic ambiguity only if miscommunications have occurred or are likely to occur
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
According to Tom Regan, our considered moral beliefs are those we hold only after we have made a conscientious effort (a) to attain maximum conceptual clarity, (b) to acquire all relevant information, (c) to think about the belief and its implications rationally, (d) impartially, and with the benefit of reflection, (e) coolly
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The key to Kant's criticism of the Ontological Argument is:
A. Anselm should have gathered empirical evidence to support his claim. B. the claim that "God exists" is synthetic, not analytic. C. it assumes an infinite regress of causes. D. there's no difference between existence in the understanding and existence in reality. E. there can't be an uncaused First Cause.