More handpicked essays just for you.
Karl Popper and the scientific method
Karl Popper and the scientific method
Karl popper on scientific method
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. Popper believes that science does not begin with the collection of empirical data, but starts with the formulation of a hypothesis (Veronesi, 2014, p1). Alexander Bird outlines Popper’s view on the scientific method in his book Philosophy of Science (1998, pp.239-240). This view is that scientists use a process of imagination to invent a hypothesis. However, once this has been established, …show more content…
As we have established, for a theory to be classed as scientific by Popper, it must be able to be falsified. This scientific theory would rule out something that can be expressed in a basic statement. An example of this would be the “theory that all swans are white, is incompatible with the basic statement, ‘[Look], a black swan’”. Popper calls this basic statement a potential falsifier (Newton-Smith, 1981, p49). Newton-Smith (1981, pp70-71) claims that no scientific hypotheses actually contain basic statements, he uses the example of Newtonian mechanics and their consequences, and that among these predictions we will not find any basic statements. To develop testable predictions the initial conditions and auxiliary hypotheses must be defined. If we find that after our test, the prediction and result do not match, has the theory been falsified? In fact, this is viewed as an anomaly, but does this anomaly prove the theory to be false? The short answer is no. There could be a number of reasons for an anomaly to be present in the …show more content…
Even Popper recognizes that scientists will work with theories that have been ‘falsified’, and won’t in fact discard a theory if there is no better alternative. Scientists are also able to work around the falsification of a hypothesis or theory by the addition, or change of, ad hoc hypotheses. Popper will allow the addition of an ad hoc hypothesis, however only under the condition that it is independently testable (Bird, 1998, p242-243). However, it seems that in general if scientists have working theories, they do not abandon them, even in the presence of falsifying evidence. They just keep working with the theory until the arrival of a better alternative (Ladyman, 2002, p89). Scientists have not observed Popper’s criterion of falsifiability, and his ideas of science, hypothesis and theory when applied to science are very restrictive. Bird uses the example of Darwin taking his “view [of evolution] to be confirmed by fossil remains”, but that the absence of such evidence would not falsify his hypothesis- the failure to find evidence to support his theory would not make any negative difference (Bird, 1998, p178). This is an example of a type of hypothesis that cannot be falsified called an existential statement. These are statements that predict the existence of something, but by not finding them, we cannot falsify their existence, as it could be our error that
Science is a study that can be viewed and interpreted in various ways. Some believe science to be based on facts and specific results, while others believe it to be based on creativity and spontaneity. In his account of the 1918 flu epidemic, The Great Influenza, John M. Barry characterizes scientific research as work that requires creativity, spontaneity, and intelligence through his use of rhetorical devices such as allusions, metaphors, and rhetorical questions.
This essay examines the advantages and disadvantages of using a method primarily for gathering research on human subjects that can be examined for later use. It will give a basic outline of the methods of investigation, their uses and their suitability. I will also look at the scientific method as a whole and examine the criticisms of this method using the writings of Hume and Popper.
This discussion focuses on two issues: the relationship between evidence and hypotheses; and, the role of "contextual" values in inquiry. Longino contrasts contextual values with constitutive values. The latter, the "values generated from an understanding of the goals of scientific inquiry," "are the source of the rules determining what constitutes acceptable scientific practice or scientific method" (L1990, 4). That these values influence inquiry is not a problem. But the former, "personal, social, and cultural values," are thought to threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry (L1990, 4-5).
Uncertainty can make anyone fear the unknown. However, scientists learn to work with this looming obstacle, for they frequently encounter uncertainty. In the passage, The Great Influenza, author John M. Barry depicts his idea of scientific research and how constant uncertainty impacts it. His purpose is to give characteristics to scientific research thus enabling his audience to view methodical scientific research in a new light. Barry’s inventive use of antithesis, metaphor, and rhetorical questions, establishes the important characteristics of scientific research, especially the ability to embrace uncertainty.
He wanted to distinguish between scientific theories in terms of “science” and “pseudoscience,” also known as the “problem of demarcation.” He states that Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology were pseudosciences–posing as real science (Popper, 2). In this case, Freud’s psychoanalysis focuses on human behavior dictated by inborn, subconscious desires that cannot be falsifies, so Freud’s psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. In addition, he states his dissatisfaction with these pseudo-science theories because of how doubtful their claims are to the scientific status, and how they have “more in common with the primitive myths than science” (Popper, 2). However, he argues “Einstein’s theory of gravitation” is science because it was proven that gravity did exist, and this theory clearly satisfied the criterion of falsifiability (Popper, 2). Popper has clearly stated the problems of demarcation, and he wants to use falsification as demarcation between scientific and nonscientific
Since the mid-20th century, a central debate in the philosophy of science is the role of epistemic values when evaluating its bearing in scientific reasoning and method. In 1953, Richard Rudner published an influential article whose principal argument and title were “The Scientist Qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments” (Rudner 1-6). Rudner proposed that non-epistemic values are characteristically required when making inductive assertions on the rationalization of scientific hypotheses. This paper aims to explore Rudner’s arguments and Isaac Levi’s critique on his claims. Through objections to Levi’s dispute for value free ideal and highlighting the importance of non-epistemic values within the tenets and model development and in science and engineering,
Scientists are constantly forced to test their work and beliefs. Thus they need the ability to embrace the uncertainty that science is based on. This is a point John M. Barry uses throughout the passage to characterize scientific research, and by using rhetorical devices such as, comparison, specific diction, and contrast he is able show the way he views and characterizes scientific research.
Karl Popper was a 20th century Austrian-British Philosopher who authored the paper Conjectures and Refutations, The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. In this paper, Popper discussed several questions and issues that he had with the philosophy of science. He first discussed the difference between science and pseudoscience. He defined science as using an empirical method (induction) that follows observations or experiments. Pseudoscience (metaphysics) also relies on observational methods, but does not meet scientific standards. Pseudoscience also relies on the interpretation of an observation. An example of this would be the study of astrology, which relies on horoscopes and biographies. In distinguishing the differences between science and pseudoscience, Popper
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
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."
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
Why is it important to be able to test theories according to Popper (Falsification thesis)? Please explain your answers.
Chalmers, Alan.F. "Falsificationism and Sophisticated Falsificationism" In A.F. Chalmers, 1978, What is this Thing Called Science? Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 35-56.
Dating back to the 1930s, Popper became a popular character in philosophy and came up with the thesis of falsification. Falsification means that a statement can be proven false through observation or experimentation. There are many situations in real life where a hypothesis or statement can be falsified. For example, in my Biology 165 Lab course, I made a hypothesis that alcohol would raise the heartrate of the Daphnia. When the experiment was completed, my hypothesis
In general, there are two focus questions that lead the Popperian account of science: firstly, Popper asks how our (scientific) knowledge grows. Secondly, Popper faces an inductive problem, as he questions how science is able to discover universal laws through singular observations (Chalmers, 1999)