Scientific Knowledge: Hypothetico-Deductivists

809 Words4 Pages
Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science. One of a few problems that hypothetico-deductivists would find in Chalmers statement is contained in the phrase, “Scientific theories in some rigorous way from the facts of experience acquired by the observation and experiment.’’ Theories are never produced strictly, Popper would say, but firstly crafted through the thought and feeling of a scientist in their given field. This then discards the idea that theories are the result of facts and it then forwards the idea that a theory will be manipulated by individual people as they are no more than a personal concept with reason. Furthermore if theories were derived meticulously from the facts the implication would then be made that the theory is virtually perfect. Yet these theories that are disproven all the time through falsifying this then demonstrates that these theories are not just part of a scientists thoughts but also that falsification is a more precise form of proof and justification than that of induction. Another problem found for hypothetico-deductivists comes in this statement, “Personal opinions have no place in science” this quote is extremely trivial. The scientific world would not be where it is today without the speculation a... ... middle of paper ... ...w. There is nothing enabling a scientist to say that induction is a suitable arrangement of evidence in which there is no way to account for the evidence, therefor being no liability in using induction to verify the statement. A hypothetico-deductivists may find a several number of problems in Chalmers scientific view. Through the use of induction to the objectiveness of science. Popper would argue falsification and how we comprehend life and the universe to change between individual people. Concluding that on Chalmers he would disagree with every statement made. With my personal perspective I am inclined to side with the hypothetico-deductivists as when forming an argument against Chalmers they have a much more accurate judgment on the world, so I am forced to reach a decision with the interpretation Popperian science has bought into the modern scientific world.

More about Scientific Knowledge: Hypothetico-Deductivists

Open Document