Unit one of this course was very interesting, the idea of “what is science? And who decides its true” is a popular topic with varying views. First, the issue of the demarcation problem is posed, in which is the work of Aristotle scientific, even if it is incorrect? Logical positivists believe that all knowledge can be reduced to some sort of logical or scientific foundation via verification. For example, a statement is only meaningful if it is purely logical or capable of empirical verification. Next, Karl Popper believes that verification is not the answer to the demarcation problem, and that scientific process/cycle is the answer to many scientific issues. As a result, it is difficult to distinguish between science from non-science. Moreover, the topic of pseudoscience is explored in this module. This term is problematic and is often a term for things we don’t happen to like. Furthermore, Peter Adkins believes science is universal and provides most comprehensive and consistent way to understand the world around us. In the video “Peter Adkins – Science As Truth” science is described as transnational, transcultural and transracial. This point is interesting to me because it suggests that there are virtually no boundaries to science and that it is the same around the world. In contrast, Austin L. Hughes believes that there are limitations to science. For example, ethics, philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology cannot be logically explained by science. Hughes uses the criterion of falsified to test theories, this means that theory is one that makes specific prediction about what results are supposed to occur under set of experimental conditions so that the theory might be falsified by experiment and comparing predicted results with actual results. Last, after watching the TED talk “Stuart Firestein – Pursuit of Ignorance” I found it interesting that scientific knowledge is compared to as a ripple in a lake. Before watching this video, I never thought that we use knowledge for a greater ignorance. That having academic ignorance makes for good scientific questions and theories. This video made me think “will there be an end to the extent of knowledge we can learn about the world?” and “will there always be unanswered questions as knowledge about the world progresses?”. In my opinion science on the question: “do you think science is the only way to discover truth?” is very conflicted. I can see why individuals such as Peter Adkins believes why science is the only way to discover the truth, however, when it comes to certain topics it becomes more ambiguous with topics such as ethics, philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology. It is hard to just assume that every topic of earth can be solved using science. For example, how can one prove scientifically how the make up of the universe is. In conclusion, science cannot be the central and only way to discover the truth about the world.