Introduction Philosophy is the study of simply questions and answers on broad topics such as the universe and our understanding of our place within it. Despite the fact these questions can seem far away from practical thought and a field such as science there connection with thought, knowledge, language and reality has provided a base for philosophy to extend to other academic fields such as science (Godfrey – Smith, 2003, p. 1,2). One question that shows the connection between the two fields is what is good science; this is the subject of both the work of Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. Kuhn and Popper are the most famous examples in the 20th Century of theories intended to show this but both take a different approach. Both look at what science should be and at what science is from a philosophical viewpoint but disagree on both points. This paper firstly analyses the work of Thomas Kuhn and his idea of normal science. Secondly it explains the somewhat contradicting theory from Karl Popper and his idea of demarcation. Thirdly the differences between the two theories are explained thoroughly. The paper concludes with analysis of both theories showing weaknesses and strengths to come to an overall viewpoint on which is considered the strongest and the best …show more content…
Despite this he comes under a lot of criticism from philosophers but his status in the scientific world tends to forgive these. His theory is based on very simple but yet compelling ideas such as the principle of falsification or refutation (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p. 57). Popper like Kuhn had a lot of disagreement with traditional views of empiricism but approached this in an extremely different way (ibid, p. 57). Poppers main aim was to understand science and as means to do this he tried to distinguish science from “Pseudo-Science”, (ibid, p.
Kuhn thought that scientific development was discontinuous . He believed that the important changes in science show radical discontinuity. Most basic to his views was the concept of a paradigm. A paradigm or as he latter termed it, a disciplinary matrix, was the most fundamental rules and concepts that defined a field of study. He said that a disciplinary matrix has three or four basic parts. The first is the symbolic generalizations. For example, in the Newtonian disciplinary matrix that was the paradigm at the time that Einstein worked, a symbolic generalization would be F = ma. The second part of the disciplinary matrix was what he called the metaphysical parts or the ontology. This is where the entities that a theory is committed to are. These are the things that the disciplinary matrix assumes exist in order to express the phenomena of a field of science in terms of these things. In the Newtonian disciplinary matrix, a metaphysical part would be the mechanical viewpoint: that everything ca...
This essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
Jaspers argues that philosophy and science are two separate ideas with different meanings (Jaspers, 1). However, I quickly discovered this isn’t how I view them. Epistemology strives to determine the limits of knowledge and capacities of opinion. This makes epistemology and science equivalent because it too aims to discover what qualifies knowledge and what simply qualifies opinions. The scientific method of hypothesizing, testing, collecting evidence, and accepting or rejecting the proposed hypothesis is epistemology encapsulated. Therefore, science and philosophy cannot be separate entities, as they are the same.
Karl Popper is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century. Popper outlined in his work, Realism and the Aim of Science, the school of realism and made his own arguments to back up the ideas of realism. Popper views the search for truth as “one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery”, just like realism does. He also is a proponent of the concept that science is progressive in nature just like realism claims. Popper was also a fan of the method of falsification, which was not a way to reject or get rid of the original scientific theory, but simply to improve it. Through the method of falsification, the scientific progress can occur. Popper argues that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and is in fact able to predict phenomena successfully due to valid claims about unobservable
The scientific revolution started in the 16th and 17th century with development of the scientific theories (Hatch, n.d.). These Scientific theories are detailed explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly duplicated through observation and experimental procedures. The understanding or the attempt to understand the human’s perspective of the world through scientific theories is the birth to the philosophy of science (Okasha, 2002). Several perspectives of scientific theories have been postulated by many on the history and philosophy of science. One of such is the Kuhn theory of science development postulated by Thomas Kuhn. His theory brought about a new perspective where scientific theories are placed in an umbrella of a grand theory called the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn who was born in 1922 in Cincinnati, studied physics at Harvard, graduating summa cum laude in 1943, applied his knowledge of quantum physics to humanities of science developing the Kuhn theory of science development (Bird, 2012). Although, earlier perspective of the process for the development of science is based on the ideology of linear cumulative addition to existing theory, the focus of this essay will on Kuhn’s view of process of science development; where normal science undergoes a periodic Paradigm shift as a result the questionable accumulation of anomalies (Okasha, 2002). This essay will give a brief analysis of the Kuhn theory of scientific development, also discussing the strength as applied to social sciences as well as its weaknesses in biological sciences; which is centered on the argument of incommensurability and paradigm replacement.
The overarching or oversimplification of these theories which seem to many to be a strength, for Popper was actually a weakness. With theories such as these anything could be interpreted into them (or the theory could be interpreted into the evidece). Thus, Popper came to the conclusion that unless a theory can be proven wrong, it cannot be labeled as scientific. He also claimed that risky predictions should be made and be testable. Also, confirming evidence should not count unless it is an attempt to falsify the theory. Now, Popper's concern the problem of the "logic of science" or the "logical problem of induction." Popper sees induction as having the same basic problem as the overgeneralization principle of the psychological, historic theories, ect. He regards no actual rule of induction ...
Earlier Science was treated as an institution but now, it includes many things like "scientific experiments, "theories" etc. The authors argue that this knowledge should viewed in terms of "socially constructed" and not the one known as "scientific truth". This article points that in the social constructivist view, the 'science' it is just another system of knowledge which contains empirical researches and studies. It is basically concerned with what is "truth", how it has emerged, accepted and explained in social domain. ...
Natural science is a structured, reasoned, and organised field of knowledge. Through schematic processes, scientific theories are proposed. Scientists impose self-censorship to support the studied ideas. By observation of the natural phenomena, scientists come up with a question. The question is reformulated into a hypothesis that is ‘falsifiable’. Falsifiability opens to a possibility of controversies to the hypothesis. For example, if a scientist question: “Does God exist?” then this question never is a hypothesis because it is an idea that can never be disproven. After selecting a ...
Beginning with the natural sciences, knowledge is derived though objective means using the scientific method to inquire about the world. The scientific method deals with experimentation, and repetition of these experiments to ensure consistency before accumulating data. This data is then evaluated in order to create the basis for facts that will be assimilated to generate scientific knowledge. This knowledge is always subject to criticism and under certain circumstances can be disproved with new theories. These new theories either replace the previously existing theories, or coexist with the old theories. In order for a scientific t...
Science is an approach by which scientists relate things to each other and explain the main concepts that govern the very laws that they derive. [Gauch, 2003]
paradigms help scientific communities to bind their discipline in that they help the scientist to do several things. they help to create avenues fo inquiry, formulate questions, select methods with which to examine questions and define areas fo relevance. Kuhn writes “In the absence fo a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all the facts that could possibly pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant” (Kuhn 15). what he was trying to show was that there must be a way to limit the direction of one’s research based on what is considered to be known from the past.
In general, there are two focus questions that lead the Popperian account of science: firstly, Popper asks how our (scientific) knowledge grows. Secondly, Popper faces an inductive problem, as he questions how science is able to discover universal laws through singular observations (Chalmers, 1999)
Before Kuhn’s book was written, the commonly held position by scientists and philosophers of science, such as Mach and Otswald , about the structure of science; was that it involved linear progression as a result of an incremental accumulation of knowledge from the activities undertaken by members of the scientific community. They thought that as generations of scientists observed more and more, their understanding of a particular scientific fact would become better refined through an ever growing stockpile of facts, theories and methods. The aim of the historian of science would be to pin point the man and the moment in time a further discovery was made; whilst also describing the obstacles that inhibited scientific progression.
One of Einstein’s secrets to success was that he was able to think outside of the box due to his learning’s in philosophy. Einstein’s influence on the philosophy of science is intertwined with his impacts on theoretical physics. Which once seemed to be two opposite disciplines during the 20th Century, were now working together to help each other evolve. Philosophers of science gave structural insights to