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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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."
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,
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 essay aims to discuss the problems of the common view of science which was presented by Alan Chalmers by Popperian's view and my personal opinions. Chalmers gives his opinion about what science is and the judgment will be made in this essay through the Popperian hypothetico-deductive and my arguments will be presented in this essay. Popperian is an important philosopher of science who developed hypothetico-deductive method, which is also known as falsificationism. In my opinion, I disagree Chlamer points of view of science and this will be present in essay later. I will restrict my arguments into three parts due to the word limitation. Three aspects will be discussed in this essay: justifying the view through the Popper's view, my agreement about the Popper's objections and additional personal opinions.
A.J. Ayer, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn. "Science and Non science: Defining the Boundary." Part 1. Pages 6-19. [...]
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.
Despite this he comes under a lot of criticism from philosophers but his status in the scientific world tends to forgive these. His theory is based on very simple but yet compelling ideas such as the principle of falsification or refutation (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p. 57). Popper like Kuhn had a lot of disagreement with traditional views of empiricism but approached this in an extremely different way (ibid, p. 57). Poppers main aim was to understand science and as means to do this he tried to distinguish science from “Pseudo-Science”, (ibid, p.
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