Voltaire said “the perfect is the enemy of the good” (Voltaire 74). In striving for a perfect definition and application of scientific analysis, Karl Popper established an impractical and ineffective approach to science. In this paper, I will discuss the premises and principles behind Popper’s scientific method of critical rationalism. I will then explain where I believe his method succeeds, where it fails, and why I consider his method both impractical and ineffective. I will do so by first explaining his thoughts on science versus the status quo, then I will take the position that his approach is flawed and impractical, and lastly conclude with a commentary on why truth has to be flexible. My thesis is that in defining highly rigid parameters
Testing a theory typically means attempting to disprove the theory, and Popper would argue this is the only way to establish it as empirical or scientific. The history of science shows that theories are constantly being disproved and re-written, as we look back at theories such as the earth being the center of the universe, which was accepted as scientific knowledge at the time. The same process can be seen for nearly every piece of scientific knowledge. Popper would say this is an example of the unstable bedrock of science, with current theory simply being the highest point, but still made of this metaphorical swamp of human
The problem that plagues Sir Popper is the clear definition of science and pseudoscience. Though the empirical method is common to both, the level of inferential data varies greatly. One can amass large amounts of data by observing human behavior, but data alone is not the stuff of scientific theory. Theories must be assembled fusing factual data, and inducive reasoning. The point of induction seems to be where science and pseudoscience must part ways. A scientific theory will, after applying raw data, leave little room for inference. On the other hand, a pseudoscience allows the experiment to progress in any number of directions. Popper becomes quite aware of this dilemna of the social scientist when he applies both Freud and Adlers conflicting psychological theories to the same test case, and they perform equally well. This brings him to the question of whether social theories explain human behavior or simply adapt to it. Physical sciences, as the name implies, depend on physical eveidence to defend their theories.
While agreeing with Popper's falsifiability criteria, I question his initial assumptions of the nature of science. He suggests that all scientific thought is purely logical and scientific theories are rigorous, mathematical and precise. While true for most modern theories, this assumption is not true for ancient scientific theories.
Alan Chalmer’s controversial description of scientific method is, in many ways, in opposition to Karl Popper’s hypothetico-deductivist account, otherwise known as falsificationism. In this essay, I will elaborate on the various conflicts that the Popperian view has with Chalmer’s account. I think that Chalmer and Popper have common ground on which they have built their views but that while each are imperfect, I support the Popperian hypothetico-deductivist account as the predominant view at present. I shall justify this in my proposed objections to Chalmer’s statements but also highlight the shortcomings of falsificationism. I will assume that science is rational.
At first Popper seems to just be criticizing the integrity of some sciences and/or scientists who nebulously back their vague and general theories with references to observations that may be inconclusive or scanty which they presumably call "scientific method." He cites Freud and Adler's psychological theories, as well as the socio-economic or historical theory or Karl Marx as theories in which "Whatever happens always confirms it."
The reliability and usefulness of a theory in psychology is extremely important as psychology can deal with very sensitive topics, help implement social policies and treat patients. As psychology is a subject that is involved in a number of areas, the theories that are posited by researchers need to be as accurate as possible. One way to do this is to look back in history and find examples of good scientific practices and understand what made them good.
The study of psychology began as a theoretical subject a branch of ancient philosophy, and later as a part of biological sciences and physiology. However, over the years, it has grown into a rigorous science and a separate discipline, with its own sets of guidance and experimental techniques. This paper aims to study the various stages that the science of psychology passed through to reach its contemporary status, and their effects on its development. It begins with an overview of the historical and philosophical basis of psychology, discusses the development of the various schools of thought, and highlights their effects on contemporary personal and professional decision-making.
The development of psychology like all other sciences started with great minds debating unknown topics and searching for unknown answers. Early philosophers and psychologists such as Sir Francis Bacon and Charles Darwin took a scientific approach to psychology by introducing the ideas of measurement and biology into the way an indi...