The theory of knowledge obligation is an essential key to the educational philosophy. From a philosophic point of view, neutral question is the question that is obvious interpreted from a questioner who has not vested any interest on the answer. In other words, the questioner will accept the answer that is given out or emerges from anyone. Neutral question is a leading question in the argumentative essay that is well distinguished in the legal world of philosophy. In this case, witnesses are asked questions that are designed and produce a certain answer that will settles the questioner’s prove and will. However, collecting knowledge in this way can also be referred as confirmation biases. The questioner will avoid validation bias and refrain from seeking to weight the outcome of the review in favor of defined predictions or ideas. Therefore, neutral question becomes a separate and impersonal open question.
Is there any such a neutral question? In addition, how can someone conclude judgment of whether the question is neutral or not? Neutral question in this case become the command term in the prescribed title. Having said that, from the dictionary point of view, neutral question its essential meaning is non-partisan, unbiased or something is reliable that does not take sides. Particularly, the given titles do suggest the questions within the diverse areas of knowledge. Thus, leading the essay in a certain direction, and have some agenda. Particularly, the set title does suggest that questions within the diverse areas of knowledge lead us in a definite direction, and have some agenda. Therefore, the essay suggests that all questions are leading questions and that it is incredible to investigate or ask knowledge without having a defined notion of what the questioner want to find. From the natural science and indigenous knowledge, this paper aims to refute the argument that there is no such thing as neutral science.
The paper candidly and comprehensively elucidate in one famous area on the scientific method, also referred as natural sciences. The method is a wide range of knowledge, and there are several overlaps between it and the human science. Natural science, basically, it seeks to discover laws of nature and deals with the physical world such as chemistry, physics, biology, and geology. The knowledge also includes even physiology, so anything in medicine that is involved with how human bodies work also falls into the natural sciences. When it comes to human behaviors, although, human beings are over the line and into the latter as the subject area. Obviously, the scientific method is predicted on such questions, but the history of science is perforated with instances where there is treatment of answers. In other words, experimental results may reveal widespread confirmation bias and suppression of experimental data that threatens the hypothesis.
Second point is the famous example of natural science from Dr. Roger Revelle of Harvard University. Dr. Roger was one of the first people in the theoretical community to sound his alarm on global warming. Therefore, he became the first scientist who discovered about global-warming movement. He was recognized as the co-author of the influential 1957 paper that confirmed that fossil fuels had raised carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere. He was asked whether this might be a cause for concern. This natural science of global warming became a brief overview of the hypothetical-deductive method that gave a solid starting point for defining neutral question. He realized that the levels of CO2 were going to increase. However, he did not provide enough evidence to support his answer, and many took it as a neutral question and waited for the support of the question. Same case in the neutralization reaction of acids and bases, from the reaction we get salt, which is the compound obtained after neutralization of an acid and a base. In this sense, the natural sciences stress the role of experiential review. Hence, scientific knowledge must be able to endure the test of experiment and experience.
According to the moral relativism, there is no one true morality claim, but various distinct moralities, similarly to the way there are different languages and cultures. The relativists believe that when the moral disagreement exists, the two conflicting arguments can be true. For instance, in a poor society, an individual may claim that it is not right to donate food to the poor because this makes them lazier and hence poorer. On the other hand, those individual refuting this argument may disagree that it is morally right to help the needy. Therefore, they argue that those against this argument are making a great mistake. In other words, the two individual believes that only one of them has to be right. However, through the relativism principle, the two conflicting moral claim can be both true. In other words, the righteous royalist and staunch socialist have equal rights, but the difference is that they both have different moral views. The moral truth can, therefore, be considered as relative to a specific group. This indicates that the concept of the neutralism exists within the moral dimension where different individual can be right on the conflicting moral values. Consequently, this indicates the existence of the neutral question in the society.
Although the moral relativism is a significant doctrine that provides significant implications for how people conducts their lives and organize their societies, it is worldly criticized of having substantial loopholes. Some philosophers believe that this doctrine cannot be widely held because it is considered as a way to criticize or invoke the other side view. The doctrine provides difficulties in the attempt to individualize the social groups. Because it is difficult to noticeably split the world into different social groups, it becomes impossible to demonstrate how relative a moral truth can be in a social group. It, therefore, indicates that the principle of neutralism can only be applied on when the world can be divided into different social groups, of which this is hard to achieve. Through the relative moral outlook, the neutral questions are not acceptable, and the question should take the side. For instance, a question can be morally good or bad depending on the facts and argument to support this. However, the challenge with the universal morality is that it lacks normative importance. In other words, the universal morality does not provide a definitive view of bad or good. Questions arise whether individual should abide with some distinctive moral values. The relativism helps individuals to decide what the right way to follow and define the importance and implication of universal morality. Maybe, some distinctive values promote the ideas of things that are socially viewed as bad. For instance, acts of killing and raping should be punishable as a way of mitigating such actions. But in the case of the non-humans, they rape, steal and kill one another without being punished. On the other hand, it cannot be argued that universal morality promotes such actions or behaviors.
Additionally, the nature of reasoning can be used to tell whether neutral questions exist or not. This is because reasons are not used to add value. For example, if an individual is told that a certain food item is cooked using ingredients such as mild and cheese, it does not mean that he/she will find that item delicious. Reason can be considered as evaluative neutral because they cannot be used to tell the individual which facts are morally upright. However, reasons can only tell the individual about the values that are inconsistent and the actions that can enable them accomplish their goals. Therefore, if there exists two conflicting ideas, reason can only tell individual to either impede the other goals or give up on their goals. In other words, reason does not tell an individual to be in favor of one action over the other.
It is thus evident that there is neutrality from the indigenous knowledge, and thus in questions. From the indigenous knowledge the neutrality exists through the principle of relativism and hence the neutral questions. In natural science, a hypothesis is verified by experiment to give evidence. The natural sciences can also repeat experiments to give accurate and verify the hypotheses, therefore, generalizing their results just like neutral question generalize the knowledge.
Prinz, J, 2011, Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response | Issue 82 | Philosophy Now, Viewed from https://philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response