Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Science and its impact on society
Isaac Newton and the scientific revolution
Isaac Newton and his contributions to science
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Science and its impact on society
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. Finally, after rigorous attempts have been made to find the hypothesis untrue, the scientist may tentatively accept the hypothesis as true. However, if the hypothesis is found untrue, the scientist must reject his hypothesis . Therefore, Popper has set forth not only a definition of a scientific theory, but also an environment wherein scientists can work. Popper is discriminating in his definition of an "imaginative" hypothesis. Popper intends that a hypothesis must predict a phenomenon or behavior and not just offer to explain it. Traditionally, scientists have formed hypotheses in an attempt to explain or rationalize some natural phenonmen that they have examined. That is, hypotheses are presented as justification for an observation. The two-sphere model of the universe that existed in pre-Copernican times is an excellent example of this method. The ancients needed a model with which to justify the constantly changing positions of the moon and planets. Instead of being based on subjective observations, a hypothesis should be the sole product of a scientist's imagination. Popper calls this "an irrational element" or a "creative intuition" (Williams, 1989). Sir Isaac Newton is an excellent exam...
... middle of paper ...
... scientific community learns from the experience and knowledge becomes a cumulative project. Popper does a great service to the scientific community by stating and refining the obvious way science has worked for centuries.
References
a. Edwards, Paul, Editor-in-Chief. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 5 and 6. (1967), pp 398-401.
b. Gillespie, Charles C. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Volumes I, X, and XI. (1975), pp 250-258, 186- 202, 401, 410.
c. Klemke, E. D. , et al. Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. (1988), pp 19-27.
d. O'Hear, Anthony. Karl Popper. (1989), pp 96-111.
e. Westfall, Richard. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. (1980), pp 170-181.
f. Who' s Who in Science. (1967), pp 1257, 1381, 61.
g, Williams, Douglas E. Truth, Hope, and Power: The Thought of Karl Popper. (1989), pp 61-73.
“Brooks, Bruce (1950-)” UXL Junior DISCovering Authors. (2003): n. pag. Student Resource Center – Gold. Thompson Gale. Web. 23 Jan. 2010.
A hypothetico-deductivists may find a several number of problems in Chalmers scientific view. Through the use of induction to the objectiveness of science. Popper would argue falsification and how we comprehend life and the universe to change between individual people. Concluding that on Chalmers he would disagree with every statement made. With my personal perspective I am inclined to side with the hypothetico-deductivists as when forming an argument against Chalmers they have a much more accurate judgment on the world, so I am forced to reach a decision with the interpretation Popperian science has bought into the modern scientific world.
Bragg, Melvyn, On Giants' Shoulders: Great Scientists and Their Discoveries from Archimedes to DNA. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.
Henry, John. (2001). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Publishing
Stumpf, S. E., & Fieser, J. (2008). Philosophy: History and problems. . New York: McGraw-Hill.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
Fodor, Jerry (1997), “Special Sciences: Still Autonomous After All These Years”, Philosophical Perspectives 11: 149-163.
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.
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.
Ferinad Puretz, Max. 'True Science', Review of Peter Medawar, Advice to a Young Scientist. N.p.: n.p., 1980. Print.
Darwin, Charles. From The Origin of Species. New York: P.F. Collier and Son Corporation, 1937. 71-86; 497-506.
Pearson, K. (1907, August). On the Influence of Past Experience on Future Expectations. The Philosophical Magazine, pp.365-378. Popper, K. (1961). The 'Pie The Logic of Scientific Discovery.
Weinberg, Steven. 1992. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature. New York: Pantheon Books.
Gliboff, S. (1999). Gregor Mendel and the laws of evolution. History of Science 37: 217-228.
Thornton, Stephen. "Karl Popper." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta. Spring 2014. Web. 13 March 2014.