To Falsify or not to Falsify
Consider for a moment the views of Hellenic and Hellenistic science. Hellenic science was a science of the big picture. Science which often overlooked small details. Hellenistic science, on the other hand, was much more mathematical and precise. The shift from Hellenic to Hellenistic science was nothing more than a change of perspective in science. Right or wrong aside, scientist's perspectives changed and along with it what was allowed to be scientific. To quote Khun, "What is it that transforms an apparently temporary discrepancy into an inescapable conflict. How can an conceptual scheme that one generation admiringly describes as subtle, flexible, and complex, become for a later generation merely obscure, ambiguous, and cumbersome?"(Khun 76)
Whether we like it or not, science is subjective. There are certain universal standards of science that all fields must follow, such as the empirical method, but among the different scientific fields science changes. What works in one field may not work in another.
Sir Karl Popper claims "The criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability."(Popper23). He then states "Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth" (Popper25). This produces problems for certain fields of science.. His theory accounts for the "hard sciences", chemistry, physics and astronomy, but not for the "soft sciences". These soft sciences deal with different set of limitations and problems. Many so called "pseudo-sciences" deal with people, not constant non-sentient bodies. In these sciences, the variables are limitless and the best predictions scientists can produce are probabilities.
So what about other sciences such as psychology, sociology, meteorology, and medicine? There are numerous fields of science that deal with probability and correlation's, which are part of the inductive method of science. What's there to say to these fields? For these sciences induction must remain valid when deduction is not possible. In the "hard sciences", such as chemistry, physics, and astronomy, deduction is applicable to the validity of a theory, and therefore deduction can be used to accurately falsify a theory. The soft sciences require induction for theory verification as well as deduction.
Since I am a psychology major, I will use psychology and sociology to refute Poppers claims of falsifiability. The examples that I give are done with the scientific method. When necessary, random samples are used and confounding variables are negated. These studies were done within scientific guidelines.
... middle of paper ... ... We can trace the origins of modern scientific trends back to Greek primal establishment. From the simplistic Socratic approach of ‘Who am I?’
1. Video “Here Be Dragons” by Brian Dunning (4/15/14) is a fresh and critical overlook on the huge variety of so called “dragons” which exist in abundance even in our civilized society. This video promotes critical thinking and demonstrates the “red flags” that one has to look out for in order to detect pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is an idea that claims to be real but is not backed by any real science or evidence. For instance, hair analysis, feng shui, psychokinesis, homeopathy, numerology, aura analysis, the list could go on forever. The warning signs for such “sciences” are - appeal to authority, ancient wisdom, confirmation bias, confuse correlation with causation, red herring, proof by verbosity, mystical energy, suppression by authority, all natural and ideological support. The one “red flag” I have always been skeptical about and this video confirmed it for me is “appeal to authority”. It is hard for me to understand how people actually trust advertisements that are simply screaming “we are specialists, look at our white lab coats and and all the certificates and the celebrities that support our product”. It is simply pathetic. As Brian says - “Good science presents good data, it does not aim to impress”. However, the one “red flag” that I have to be careful about myself is confusing correlation with causation. It is the natural human tendency to assume that, if two events or phenomena consistently occur at about the same time, then one is the cause of the other. Our weakness for this tactic is often exploited by scammers and bogus scientists when they want to persuade us that a relationship exists between two variables without providing supporting evidence. In order to secure ourselves from falling for all the nonsense...
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.
...ntific it is possible that it may be proven wrong when the theory is actually correct, just that the experiment chosen to test the theory is wrong. As I have already mentioned, I feel that too look at the theory in terms of science is damaging to a theory which doesn't need scientific backing to justify it. I feel that it is just as important to discover truths by observation and deduction as it is to do so in a strictly scientific manner.
by saying that it is science is a disgrace to the scientific method. This statement was
Initial answer: My initial answer is to the question of whether scientific knowledge should be based on observations is yes, observations are to be the basis of all scientific knowledge.
Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were negated by the fact that when investigating theories scientists focused on comparing their hypothesis to observable consequences in an empirical and objective manor (“context of justification). Thus, this allowed the Positivist’s to “acknowledge the play of subjective factors in initial development of hypotheses and theories while guaranteeing that their acceptance [is] determined not by subjective preferences but by observed reality” (Longino 172). However, although this theory was popular for some period of time, a philosopher by the name of Helen Longino approached the problem of scientific objectivity in a different way. She believed that science was a social practice that involved the inevitable input of various subjective factors such as scientist’s values, beliefs, etc… when performing their work. However, she goes on to say that what made science objective was the process in which scientist performed their work. She essentially thought that if the process in which scientist gained knowledge wa...
The following essay will discuss falsification, as discussed by Karl Popper, as well has his account of the scientific method. The idea whether any scientific theory can truly be falsified will also be approached by looking at the problems presented by Popper’s theory of falsification, and the impact this has on the scientific method and science as a whole.
Deception is sometimes used by researchers when they conduct psychological experiments. Deception occurs when the participant is misled about the purpose, design, of the experiment, or when the researcher uses deliberate misleading to persuade the subject into believing a certain view (McLeod). Many people believe deception is ethically wrong, and psychologists should not use it to obtain important information. I believe psychologists should be able to use deception if the participant is not psychologically harmed. It is believed that deception is the only way we can obtain true information (Connolly). The knowledge we are able to obtain about psychological tendencies outweighs the temporary effects of deception.
This essay will discuss differences in motives which have driven ancient and modern science, arguing that 17th century alterations of power structures led to the ultimate division between modern and ancient science and the eruption of modern science as it is today. Comparisons will be drawn regarding knowledge accessibility, prevailing philosophies and ideologies, and the relationship between science and the church.
Induction is at the foundation of science, but the awareness come with a paradox because now laws and theories are questioned. Induction uses the individual facts. The imagination of a scientist allows the discovery of laws and theories. There is no single method to use to reach conclusions. The teaching of science now works against creative science which makes science dry and uninteresting to students. Shiela Tobias thinks that students do not want to do something science related as a career because they are not given an opportunity to see science as exciting and
A scientific theory is an explanation that is well- substantiated explanation in regards to some aspect of the natural world that is attained through scientific method and is tested numerous times and usually confirmed through vigorous observation and experimentation. The term theory can be seen as a collection of laws which allow you to show some kind of phenomenon. The strength of a scientific theory associated with the diversity of phenomena can explain its elegance and simplicity. However when new evidence is gathered a scientific theory can be changed or even rejected if it does not fit the new findings, in such cases a more accurate theory is formed. Scientific theories are used to gain further
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
To consider a theory as truthful, it must be convincing which means the theory must stand the challenges that may occur such as persuading people for it being true, without any questioning about its value. Every individual will be convinced in a different type of way on different levels. For example, when one considers the large influence of media on our society today, some may think the news is as accurate as possible, and think every thing that is said must definitely be true. Only very basic descriptions and explanations may be required to convince someone that something is true or not. For others, detailed explanations with supporting facts may have to be provided, for them to believe what they hear, even if the theory is completely accurate. Another factor that is relevant is whether the individual is influenced by their subconscious tend or their intuition, this means whether they want to believe in the theory or not. Emotional bases and using reasoning are another two factors that may influence our beliefs. When looking at natural science, emotion does not play a large role, but rather reasoning because natural science is based on facts rather than individual interpretatio...
The pre- science phase unrolled in the ancient years. In those years science appeared in Egypt, Greece, India, etc. These ancient researchers put the bases for the development of science and gave to the society very important information about astronomy, mathematics, physics and medicine. In this phase we could report that the ideas were not very systematic. The theoretical development was in a very low level and so was the development in mathematics. The importance of this phase was the primitive discoveries that took place. (Dr. Nedeva Maria, Lecture “The story of science”, 2006)