In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.
In the article, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria that a theory must meet for it to be considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of demarcation. Popper summarizes his arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Kuhn says that he and Popper often agree as to what constitutes science and non-science. He claims that he differs with Popper in the methods that he uses to arrive at his conclusions. Kuhn says that if a line of demarcation is to be sought between science and non-science, we shouldn’t look for a "sharp or decisive" one, because science is not objective, as Popper would have us believe, but subjective.
Popper claims that the common answer to the problem of delineating between science and pseudo-science is that science uses an empirical method, deriving from observations and experiments. This explanation does not satisfy Popper. He has a gut feeling that areas of study like astrology are not science, and he attempts to come up with a theory to prove it. One of the problems I have with Popper is that instead of looking at a concrete problem and trying to come up with an explanation, Popper first made up his mind that astrology is not science, and then set out to prove it. By Popper’s own admissions, confirming evidence is everywhere, but means little. This could be applied all of Popper’s examples.
Popper is "dissatisfied" with the Marxist theory of history, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology. He sets out to describe why his gut tells him that these are unscientific theories. He argues against theories that have explanatory power. Popper has a problem with Marxists because no matter what happens in the world, they can explain the event in light of their theory. When a person believes a theory to be true, everything that happens is a verification of the truthfulness of the theory. Popper’s example is how a Marxists can’t...
... middle of paper ...
...ctly what it was besides an instinct that it was different from more traditional sciences like chemistry or physics. Why was he so determined to separate empirical science from pseudo-science? If I could talk to Popper, I would ask him, "why bother trying to draw a line at all?" It would be more fruitful to try and distinguish between what is or isn’t true and what is or isn’t significant.
I have a tendency to lean towards Kuhn over Popper. It don’t think that Popper’s ideal of proper science is useful, and he seems to agree with me ("neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability.") Kuhn looks at how the world really works, a far more significant area of study. Popper thinks that he has all of the answers. I distrust people who think that they know everything. I agree with Socrates, who said something like, "The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing." Kuhn doesn’t make rules about how science should be done, he makes suggestions. Popper wants to draw a line down the middle between science and non-science. The more I look at the problem, the more it becomes obvious that the line is not sharp, if it can be drawn at all.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- 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).... [tags: Sir Karl Popper Science Theories Essays]
832 words (2.4 pages)
- Scientists and philosophers often times differ and debate on what the definition of science is. Therefore, science has come to hold different meanings for various philosophers including Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. Karl Popper was a philosopher who made significant contributions to philosophy of science and has convinced a lot of scientists. He was decisive of the inductive techniques used by science and insisted that science is deductive. Popper was furthermore critical of the inexperienced empiricist analysis that we objectively scrutinize the world.... [tags: Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn]
2031 words (5.8 pages)
- Essay: It is possible to be a fallibilist and yet still believe that science progresses towards the truth In the history of science, there are two types of philosophers, infallibilist and fallibilist. The former insists that “Absolute certainty of empirical knowledge is attainable and there can be absolutely certain synthetic propositions”, while the other believes that there can be no absolutely certain synthetic propositions and empirical knowledge. Fallibilism began to be the main accepted position after the early 20th century.... [tags: Scientific method, Science, Epistemology]
840 words (2.4 pages)
- Hellenistic and Hellenic Interpretation of Popper Sir Karl Popper states in his treatise "Philosophy of Science: a Personal Report" asserts that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability" (Popper 23). He claims that a 'good' scientific theory must meet a single requirement: its capability of being tested. In other words, a good theory predicts future observations, and the accuracy of the prediction supports or refutes it. If a theory can't be tested then it isn't scientific.... [tags: Scientific Theories Science Essays]
2385 words (6.8 pages)
- Science coming from the latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”, is a systematic structure that builds and organizes knowledge from testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The nature of scientific progress and the rationality of scientific change lies between Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The two influential philosophers of the 20th century had very different views of science which has caused countless debates because of it. One of them, which I believe is most interesting, was the idea of the scientific method and the idea of there even being one.... [tags: Scientific method, Theory, Science]
1007 words (2.9 pages)
- The British Psychological Society states that ‘Psychology is the scientific study of people, the mind and behaviour’ (BPS). In this essay I will be discussing what is actually meant by this and whether psychology fits into both the traditional views of a science, as well as more contemporary perspectives. It is widely suggested that Psychology is a “coalition of specialities” meaning it is multi-disciplinary (Hewstone, Fincham and Foster 2005, page 4). I will therefore examine whether it could be considered wrong to think that all parts of the discipline should neatly fit into one view of a scientific approach.... [tags: Psychology ]
1124 words (3.2 pages)
- What are the point of conversion and departure between science and social science. Are the two sciences above use scientific methods. And what my opinion on this point. What do we mean when we say that we know some thing. What are the sources of knowledge. If we take the example of part of science that is medicine, we can know that there are different source of knowledge such as personal experience of our won bodies, observation of others, our families, friends" you do look ill", popular culture, bad cough and complementary health practice such as "holistic medicine." Medical knowledge of the general practitioner, we expect the doctor to have access to expert knowledge.... [tags: Sociology]
1407 words (4 pages)
- Many post World War II thinkers have been perplexed by the problem of how or even whether people from different cultures can understand each other. The problem arose when we started to think of culture as formative of language and thought. The main solutions to this problem have followed either Noam Chomsky's approach or W. V. O.Quine's and Nelson Goodman's approach. Chomsky's approach is to think of language and thought as fundamentally universal because they are based on innate and deep linguistic structures.... [tags: Noam Chomsky, W. V. O.Quine, Nelson Goodman]
4218 words (12.1 pages)
- The Points of Conversion and the Points of Departure Between Science and Social Science I will write in my essay about point of conversion and departure between science and social science. I also explain with reference to the claim that the two sciences use scientific methods and state my opinion on these points. Text Box: What are the point of conversion and departure between science and social science. Are the two sciences above use scientific methods. What do we mean when we say that we know some thing.... [tags: Papers]
2298 words (6.6 pages)
- Karl Popper and Falsifiability Karl Popper's claim that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability" is a clearly viable statement. This is a natural extension of his idea about how scientific knowledge is increased (Edwards, 1967). In an attempt to define science from pseudo-science, Popper states that the growth of scientific knowledge begins with an "imaginative proposal of hypotheses" (Edwards, 1967). Then, the scientist must search for illustrations or situations that falsify or negate the hypothesis.... [tags: Science Scientific Karl Popper Essays]
1346 words (3.8 pages)