Karl Popper Falsification

Sir Karl Popper described a new theory to scientific methodology known as falsification. His view indicates that a claim can only be scientific if it is able to be falsified. Popper believes that verification should be placed on refuting or falsifying evidence rather than putting value on confirming a theory through experimentation. Using the Holy Grail analogy, his view indicates that you never know if you have a correct theory because even though it may be glowing or correct at this moment in time, it’s possible that it could change at any point. Because of this he believes that science should make continual effort to test theories through experience and make revisions based on the outcomes. Even though Popper was a greatly established philosopher

For example using Thomas Hobbes’ metaphysical claim, some claims are not always able to be falsified. Hobbes’ claim states, “The world (I mean not the earth only... but the universe, that is, the whole mass of all things are) is corporeal[ed]...” The “extended world” deals with the nature of reality rather than, for example, how we know about the current reality that we are in. However, in order to test Hobbes' claim, a person must stand outside of the physical universe. Since it isn’t possible to go outside of the physical universe at this point in time with technology, it is not able to be falsified. One could try to falsify it using the application of logic but Popper would disagree with this way as well. Popper’s falsification only considers empirical hypothesis which focuses on observations and states that logic on its own is insufficient. When describing the idea of metaphysics Popper argues that the, “...Idea of this kind acquires scientific status [only] when it is presented in falsifiable form.” Even though Popper doesn’t believe physicalism is falsifiable up to his standards, he doesn’t address how it should be considered. When we test a theory, the test only shows whether or not the hypothesis is scientifically based without showing where the problem truly lies which I believe to be the main problem in his claim. Because of this, it has affected scientists’ response to it

Popper has made bold claims revolved around the fact that if scientists are doing induction, they are not doing science at all. Some scientists have argued against this because they are the scientist, the one in the field, and they believe that induction is what makes science. Francis Bacon has been arguing for induction since the sixteenth century explaining that it proceeds“...at once from…sense and particulars up to the most general propositions.” Induction has been used by scientists for centuries now and I believe Popper hasn’t realized how complicated his idea of deduction has really become. For example, a scientist may be trying to falsify the claim of if copper conducts electricity. If you set the experiment up accordingly and go to connect the two pieces together but nothing happens what are you supposed to do? The first thought should not be that we have just falsified this statement in a new profound way that should overturn the previous one but instead that we have made an error. The calibrations may have been off or we couldn’t of been using the wrong metal, but the obvious explanation is the scientist had made a mistake. Kuhn explains this when using Holism testing and states that, “anomalies are not counterexamples.” If every human error counted as a counter-example, all theories could possibly be falsified. Kuhn explains that sometimes in experiments, humans mess up because