The unificationist account of explanation and the notion of ad hoc-ness as posited by Popper are very similar concepts, but there is a nuance between the two that is worth explaining. Although both notions seem to show why we choose certain explanatory theories over others, they differ in that the model of unification shows us what type of theory we should accept, while Popper’s notion of ad hoc-ness shows us what type of theory to reject. Together, these concepts help us better understand the explanatory model of unification which leads us to a better understanding of why we are inclined to accept certain scientific theories over others. In this paper, I will attempt to show that falsifying theories based on Popper’s ad hoc-ness criteria strengthens the idea of unification by giving people a more specific way of eliminating competing scientific theories in search of the most unified one. First, I will briefly describe the unificationist account of explanation, then I will explain the idea of ad hoc-ness as laid out by Popper, and finally I will show how ad hoc-ness can be used to strengthen the account of unification by means of increasing its objectivity and by providing simpler explanations. To begin, the concept of unification is essentially the idea that scientific explanations should provide a unified account of a range of different phenomena. In other words, the best theories are those that can explain the most phenomena in the simplest way. This is why in the history of scientific explanation, we preferred Newton’s theory of motion over the more specific theories of Kepler and Galileo that preceded it. Because Newton’s theory was able to “unify” the observational data of his predecessors, as well as explain other... ... middle of paper ... ...ave to accept unless unification is further revised. Because as it stands, Popper’s idea of a new theory replacing the old is that it “corrects the old theory, so that it actually contradicts the old theory.” (Popper, p.16) This contradiction is what causes the winner-take-all problem because the lower explanation has been trumped by the general explanation which eliminates the lower theories ability to be explanatory. In closing, Popper’s notion of ad hoc-ness is a nuanced idea that gives the unification model more objectivity and helps to give it more support. By giving us the criteria to determine how to reject theories, Popper’s notion of ad hoc-ness allows us to further understand an otherwise intuitive model. Although the notion of ad hoc explanations isn’t the silver bullet for the unification model, it helps to complement it and give it more depth.
compromise of the two theories. There was also some debate over the power of the
Weinberg offers two excellent arguments against the Design Theory. This theory suggests that if a “designer” created the universe it would thus be perfect. For example, if a watch were found on the beach, one would know that a designer created it because it is a finely tuned machine in which all parts work perfectly together. However, if a rock was found, one could guess that a designe...
Oberheim, . E. & Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2012). The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Without agreement in the first place, we would not be able refer to the common foundation and basic facts that should be established before any further discussion of justification. Natural science includes models that may contradict with real life, and may not be applicable to our world. However, models are important in the natural sciences, even though those models may not necessarily be the most accurate representation of the specific physical phenomena. These models are continuously refined when more is discovered about the current phenomena, and these models are then updated in the light of new evidence. This then raises the question of whether models that we know may be inaccurate are considered as a part of robust knowledge. Models are simplified versions of our common reality in order to understand fundamental ideas on the most basic level and to make better sense of the world surrounds us. Models are nonetheless useful for us, because it allows us to picture complicated physical phenomena and use a much simpler model to depict our observation through sense perception. For example, the Newton´s first law states that an object will stay in motion unless there is an opposing force acting upon it. We know that this theory, only work when there is not friction or air resistance. However, when using models we sacrifice accuracy for the sake of simplicity. In
Karl Popper is known for being one of the most influential philosophers of science. Karl Popper, like many others, used a logical analysis of arguments to explain how science truly works. With his theory of falsification, Popper explains how scientific theories can never be proven, but can be falsified (Doria, 2009; Grant, 2005; Kurz, 1996; Shareef, 2007; Ter Hark, 2004) Specifically, Popper gives reason as to why science does not progress by proving theories right, but by discarding old theories as wrong. The idea that multiple observations cannot prove a theory to be correct, as the next observation can contradict them, is what made Popper question how valid a theory could possibly be (Doria, 2009). But what about modifying a hypothesis? Can theories be saved? Many people questioned Popper’s philosophical ideas and criticize his skepticism.
The natural sciences attempt to explain the physical world through the interaction of organized models. Hypotheses, theories, and laws are related to each other in order to create a web of ideas that explain the connections between natural phenomena. These hypotheses, theories, and laws are made by observing objective truths about the physical world and then using that empirical evidence to reason why cer...
Moritz Schlick believed the all important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the doubt of the certainty of human knowledge. This problem originates in the wish for absolute certainty. A very important idea is the concept of "protocol statements", which are "...statements which express the facts with absolute simplicity, without any moulding, alteration, or addition, in whose elaboration every science consists, and which precede all knowing, every judgment regarding the world." (1) It makes no sense to speak of uncertain facts, only assertions and our knowledge can be uncertain. If we succeed therefore in expressing the raw facts in protocol statements without any contamination, these appear to be the absolutely indubitable starting points of all knowledge. They are again abandoned, but they constitute a firm basis "...to which all our cognitions owe whatever validity they may possess." (2) Math is stated indirectly into protocol statements which are resolved into definite protocol statements which one could formulate exactly, in principle, but with tremendous effort. Knowledge in life and science in some sense begins with confirmation of facts, and the protocol statements stand at the beginning of science. In the event that protocol statements would be distinguished by definite logical properties, structure, position in the system of science, and one would be confronted with the task of actually specifying these properties. We fin...
For the first part of Poppers argument I must adamantly agree. Science is a continual process through which induction and empirical method play a major part, Nonetheless, if a theory is to be scientific it must be able to be tested. It must have this component of Falsifiability! If we do not continually test ourselves and strive for reaffirmation we risk falling in to a pit of conjecture and; I would further say that any theory that cannot be falsified by either present means or by proposed means cannot be a scientific one.
...theorists is correct in their views because no one can prove them wrong. Each has evidence that theirs is the correct theory or method.
The force of this method originates from its logical difference between the inductive proof of a universal claim and the deductive falsification of a universal claim. As the falsification of statement can be inferred from one singular event. For example, once one non-white dog is observed my claim that all dogs are white is false. Thus, with popper’s method, a hypothesis must have falsifiability. A hypothesis is falsifiable if a logical observation can be made that is inconsistent or contradict with it. For example, the claim that all dogs are white is falsifiable, as an instance of a non-white dog is a logical possibility. Thus, a scientific hypothesis must make definite claims about the universe and have information that pertains to ruling out certain possibilities. A claim that may be true or false regardless of the world and those not inform us of the world is not falsifiable. For example, the claim “the next dog I see will be white” this statement may be true or false, for instance, if it were false it does not mean the next dog I see after this will not be white. As such if the observation contradicts with the prediction, the hypothesis is falsified. Thus, opposed to the original scientific method, the hypothetic-deductive method does not prove a hypothesis but rather show that they are a useful inference that has yet to be proven false. As popper’s method, does not deal with induction, the problems with induction as previously mentioned do not arise. However, it must be said that Popper's method is not without criticism. One such critic is whether the popper’s method is completely isolated from the use of inductive reasoning. As popper claims “laws are not justified by being proved by the data, they are justified by being not disproved by the data”. However, this statement also similarly to inductive reasoning, makes a logical leap that a hypothesis that has not yet
Karl Popper's claim that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability" is a clearly viable statement. This is a natural extension of his idea about how scientific knowledge is increased (Edwards, 1967). In an attempt to define science from pseudo-science, Popper states that the growth of scientific knowledge begins with an "imaginative proposal of hypotheses" (Edwards, 1967). Then, the scientist must search for illustrations or situations that falsify or negate the hypothesis. Finally, after rigorous attempts have been made to find the hypothesis untrue, the scientist may tentatively accept the hypothesis as true. However, if the hypothesis is found untrue, the scientist must reject his hypothesis . Therefore, Popper has set forth not only a definition of a scientific theory, but also an environment wherein scientists can work. Popper is discriminating in his definition of an "imaginative" hypothesis. Popper intends that a hypothesis must predict a phenomenon or behavior and not just offer to explain it. Traditionally, scientists have formed hypotheses in an attempt to explain or rationalize some natural phenonmen that they have examined. That is, hypotheses are presented as justification for an observation. The two-sphere model of the universe that existed in pre-Copernican times is an excellent example of this method. The ancients needed a model with which to justify the constantly changing positions of the moon and planets. Instead of being based on subjective observations, a hypothesis should be the sole product of a scientist's imagination. Popper calls this "an irrational element" or a "creative intuition" (Williams, 1989). Sir Isaac Newton is an excellent exam...
In the field of the natural sciences, scientists discard that which was considered knowledge previously on a regular basis due to the consistent development of new knowledge. It is the job of a scientist to not hold anything to be completely true without justifying the proposition for themselves. If a contradictory proposition is found to be true through justification by the scientific method of experimentation, the scientist conducting the research will accept the new proposition as knowledge and discard that which was previously held as knowledge. Through the scientific method, no proposition can be accepted as true by the scientific community until it has been confirmed on several occasions by several contrasting sources. The scientific method is an exemplary use of true reason as a way of knowing to accumulate knowledge. After a theory has been justified, only then can it become fact. Scientific law models the knower’s pursuit of knowledge on several levels because for a theorem to become law, it...
Rpt. in Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Ed. Curd, Martin, and J. A. Cover:
A good theory must satisfy parsimony or simplicity to be considered valid. There are some different outlooks on how simple a theory must be and is usually looked at by the complexity of
The three essential aims of science are prediction, control and explanation. However, the greatest of these is scientific explanation. Scientific explanations are nothing but tentative proposals. They are offered in hope of capturing the best outlook on the matter. Scientific explanations however, are subject to evaluation as well as modification. They are valid deductive arguments whose conclusion is the event to be explained. The Scientific mode of explanation is more properly named the nomological-deductive type. It is also known as the DN account. This means that the explanation is deduced from law-like statements (from the Greeknomos= a law). For example, there is the law, or universal hypothesis, that whenever the Earth passes between the Sun and the Moon there is an eclipse of the Moon. Thus any particular eclipse may be explained as an instance of that general law. The general rule that provides the explanation is strengthened if it can be shown to be consistent with a more fundamental