Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
karl popper's falsification summary
karl popper's falsification summary
karl popper's falsification summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: karl popper's falsification summary
Sir Karl Popper's Falsifiability Claim
Popper asserts that "it is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory--if we look for confirmations." Kuhn illustrates (page 6), in his discussion of cosmologies, that man needs a structure for his universe. Man needs to explain the physical relation between his personal habitat and nature in order to feel at home. Explaining this relation gives meaning to his actions.
Moreover, Kuhn says observation is a double edged sword (page 7). This sword can confirm or conflict with cosmology which can destroy the theory. Kuhn discusses the astronomer (page 7), who because of his own world view (via his specialty) will not verify Milton's image of the Milky Way as being broad and ample or Shakespeare's vision of stars as night candles. Those descriptions don't tell the astronomer how far away the Milky Way, the Sun or Jupiter happen to be.
Observations (page 26) are only clues to a mystery. The schema created by the observer can affect the results. "Therefore, observations like those discussed in the preceding sections could be collected and put in systematic form by men whose beliefs about the structure of the universe resembled those of the ancient Egyptians" (page 26).
Kuhn discusses the functions of a conceptual scheme (page 36). He indicates that a theory deriving from observations can also transcend them. Kuhn says that since the two sphere universe is based on the human imagination of the obser...
Within the cases detailed in Jennifer Kahn 's essay, “Notes from a Parallel Universe,” and Oliver Sacks ' essay, “Scotoma: Forgetting and Neglect in Science,” there are many similarities, largely in the reasoning behind the initial failures of newly presented and highly controversial theories. Standing chief amongst them is the credibility and scientific standing of the theory 's author. Take, for instance, the case of John Frederick Herschel. Herschel, an outsider of the realm of physicians to which he theorized, had no reasonable scientific standing in medicine. As a result of this, his ideas about an observable “Geometrical Spectra,” (Sacks, 143) were scoffed at or ignored by the physicians of his day. This is quite similar to the large
Kitcher argues that what makes for a good explanation, or what makes a theory explanatory, is that it unifies or ties together different phenomenon or laws (Kitcher 1981, Pg. 711). The explanatory power of unification is a matter of deriving various phenomena using the same type of reasoning pattern as the argument (Kitcher 1981, Pg.721). For example, Newtonian physics showed that the argument pattern of ‘principa’ could be extended to derive descriptions of several distinct phenomena (Kitcher 1981, Pg. 716). Newtonian physics consists of a couple of simple laws such as the law of gravity and the law of attraction. These laws unify all kinds of phenomena in the world by using the same type of reasoning pattern. Thus, Newtonian physics extends its explanatory power into all kinds of phenomen...
Reeves uses the example of Johanes Kepler who believed the universe acted like a machine (Reeves 26). By likening the vast, complex universe to a machine, Kepler is better equipped to explain his predictions about the behaviors of the universe.
... telescopes like Hubble, and the Very Long Baseline Interferometry Space Observatory (VSOP), have also proven useful analytical tools for astronomers. Black holes and quasars are interdependent theories. The explanation of black holes leads to an explanation for quasars. These phenomena lead astronomers to believe that there may be places in the universe where the laws of physics may break down, opening doors to new theories for future astronomers (Hawkings).
Astronomy’s beginnings can be considered to go back as far as humankind has looked up at the sky in wonder. A simple question then led to an answer that is still being uncovered today. That question: “What is everything up there?” Two-thousand years later, some questions have been answered. Many still remain. However, the process in which these answers have been obtained has not been simple. Many times throughout history, astronomers have believed the answer was in sight and tenaciously believed the idea, only to discover they were wrong years later. These astronomical fads have held the progress of astronomy, and consequently almost all other branches of science, back for hundreds of years as the truth was sorted out. One of the first examples of this was the model of solar system. Aristotle first reasoned that the Earth was at the center and the sun and planets traveled around it on crystalline spheres (Baron 44). The most distant sphere was black and had many small holes punched in it (Baron 44). Behind that was the light from Heaven which shown through the holes making the stars (Baron 44).
Truth, certainty, precision are the highest criteria for judgement on any statement concerning structures and processes of a universe within the reach of the human mind. People learned that the mythological heritage cannot satisfy all spiritual needs and, consequently, the mind activity extended from the perceptual explanation of the world to the conception of means to record and disseminate the resulting cognitions. Thinking became gradually a researching activity with a lasting educational component and was able to develop a twofold advance: philosophy dealing with general retrospective analyses and prospective outlooks, and science focussing the attention on particular actual problems approached by specific means. In spite of obvious differences, both philosophical and scientifical thoughts are to submit their statements to he above criteria for assuming the noblest tasks of Paideia.
Democritus, a pre-socratic philosopher, is credited with first hypothesizing that the bright band which runs across the night sky may be a close cluster of stars. Democritus lived around the year 400 BC. It wasn’t until the 17th century that Galileo Galilei provided proof that the galaxy was made up of many stars, using an early telescope. Then in the 18th century a man name Thomas Wright postulated that the galaxy what actually a gigantic rotating clus...
“We used to look up at the sky and wonder about our place in the stars, now we just look down and worry about our place in the dirt” (Interstellar). No one knows, or may ever know for certain, how the universe ever came into existence. Cosmologists have uncovered multiple viable theories that explain the advent of the universe, but we assume that there can only be one. In 1927, Georges Lemaître suggested that the universe began at a moment in time and from there everything expanded exponentially outward from that single point. Lemaître’s model was only one of many developed that genuinely offered an explanation to how the universe was created. Lemaître’s model was approached with skepticism because, at the time, a static universe was generally
An underlying theme present throughout the series is the possibility that our existence is not the only one. According to current theories in physics, it is entirely possible that our universe is just one of many universes f...
Astronomers make certain assumptions when they study the universe as a whole. These assumptions may be difficult to prove or verify in practice, but they form an essential starting point for cosmology. The first is the idea that the laws of physics can be applied across the universe. It is a very bold assumption, because our laws of physics are only determined precisely in laboratories on Earth and they may not apply exactly over all time and space. Hubble had to assume that Cepheid variables always worked the same way in order to demonstrate that many of the nebulae were distant galaxies. Astronomers are quite confident that physics is not wildly different elsewhere in the universe. We see the same types of stars and galaxies everywhere we look. We see spectral lines from the same elements billions of light years away that we do in nearby stars. These observations lend support to the
Theorizing and hypothesizing are at the heart of the scientific method and are imperative to the progression of science. Understanding how the universe works additionally entails understanding how the universe does not work. Amongst Aristotelian physics were the original theories...
For centuries, the explanation of the origin of our universe has been a heavily debated subject of religious, philosophical and scientific discussion. However, attempts to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today have been thoroughly explored, not the initial creation of the universe itself. From the studies of both famous cosmologists and ordinary folk, there are two famous and widely accepted theories of how our universe evolved to what is today - The Big Bang theory and The Steady State theory. And along with these proposed theories is a plethora of evidence
The task cosmology has to perform is to explain the structure of the Universe as it is observed.
Aristotle based his model of the universe on Pythagorean theory which described the Earth as a sphere. His claims of a round Earth were reinforced by three observations. The first of these was that all Earthly matter moved towards the centre of the Earth, and this would consequently produce a sphere. The second observation was that if the Earth was flat, then lunar eclipses would not portray segments which possessed a curved outline. The last of these observations claimed that if or when a person travels North or South, they do not in both cases observe the same stars, nor are they positioned identically. Aristotle also hypothesised a geocentric universe. This means that a static Earth is orbited by its moon, the sun and all of the other planets-which were believed to be homocentric spheres- in perfect God-like circles. Aristotle also claimed that beyond all of the planets, the stars were embedded in a larger sphere, which too rotated. In 140 AD, this model of the universe was refined by Ptolemy who additionally included epicycles. Aristotle furthermore postulated that the world, which lay below the moon, was imperfect and corruptible whereas that which lay beyond the moon was incorruptible and designed to perfection. He supposed that the substances upon Earth consisted of four dissimilar elements- water, air, fire and earth- whereas the ‘heavens’ above were created of quintessence. This model was widely accepted as it complied with religious views and predominated over all others for close to two-thousand years. The str...
It shows that in this spherical universe one can go straight but never for very long. If you are certain you are going in a straight line think again. But these facts are known, if not by the general public then at least by mathematicians. However Max Born states the theory only holds water if the exact sphere of reference is specified, if nothing is certain then the sphere of reference can never be known to a point where there is no question as to it being perfect, therefore a basic theory of motion is null and void. The statement “nothing can be known with certainty'; holds true to the vast unending universe all the way down to the tinniest subatomic particle. Everything is moving; nothing can be studied to so exactly that there is no question about the object, because the act of studying an object changes the object.