Karl Popper's Falsifiability

978 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Karl Popper's theory of falsifiability

Karl Popper's Falsifiability

Sir Karl Popper's lecture was very thought provoking concerning "where to draw the line." Unlike most people, the validity of the theory was not his concern as much as how that validity is determined. This is an issue that really does not get the attention that it deserves. Popper's claims concerning, "When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" and "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?" seems to be put together in the following summary.

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."

The overarching or oversimplification of these theories which seem to many to be a strength, for Popper was actually a weakness. With theories such as these anything could be interpreted into them (or the theory could be interpreted into the evidece). Thus, Popper came to the conclusion that unless a theory can be proven wrong, it cannot be labeled as scientific. He also claimed that risky predictions should be made and be testable. Also, confirming evidence should not count unless it is an attempt to falsify the theory. Now, Popper's concern the problem of the "logic of science" or the "logical problem of induction." Popper sees induction as having the same basic problem as the overgeneralization principle of the psychological, historic theories, ect. He regards no actual rule of induction ...

... middle of paper ...

...et who is to determine the evidence and theory to determine whether it is ad hoc? More importantly, when interpreting this, no matter who does it, how will you get past induction when interpreting the theory and/or evidence?

I seem to hop off the boat when Popper completely throws out induction. Induction may be used loosely, but Popper even quotes Born in saying "valid induction" putting it in the realm of logic (p. 25). I could understand being skeptical of personal inferences, but valid induction seems crucial. This happens to bring up another point. It is the "conjectures: to jump to conclusions--often after one single observation" that he cites as the way science is done (p. 25). Is this not diametrical opposed to his main point that we must be more stringent and not allow people with personal conjectures (like Freud or Marx) to call what they did science?

Show More
Related

  • Scientific Knowledge: Hypothetico-Deductivists

    809 Words  | 2 Pages

    Popperian hypothetico deductivists would find several problems with the view of science Alan Chalmers stated in ‘What is this thing Called Science?’ From “Scientific knowledge is proven knowledge” to “Scientific knowledge is reliable knowledge because it is objectively proven” popper would disagree to everything. With Chalmers falsificationism or hypothetico-deductivism view, his statement indicates that scientific induction is completely justifiable. However as it is now known, induction is not a reasonable way to prove or justify science.

    Read More

  • Free Hamlet Essays: Hamlet Interpreted

    517 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the Dramaturgic Analysis of Hamlet Prince of Denmark the indecisiveness of Hamlet is noted. He does not immediately seek vengeance but continually schemes, rants and raves (both in his rational and insane moments). Whether cowardice, caution, or simply indifference dominate his persona is unclear - what is clear is his distaste for his own behavior: "How stand I then, That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,...And let all sleep, while to my shame I see The imminent death of twenty thousand men... (sic)." (Shakespeare, 116).

    Read More

  • Can Marx's Theory of History Be Truly Scientific?

    2189 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...ntific it is possible that it may be proven wrong when the theory is actually correct, just that the experiment chosen to test the theory is wrong. As I have already mentioned, I feel that too look at the theory in terms of science is damaging to a theory which doesn't need scientific backing to justify it. I feel that it is just as important to discover truths by observation and deduction as it is to do so in a strictly scientific manner.

    Read More

  • The Great Influenza John M Barry Analysis

    417 Words  | 1 Pages

    Scientists have greatly taken todays advantage to make what once was research, factual evidence. To be a scientist takes great creativity and intelligence, and today’s scientists even past scientists had to rely on their hypothesis as a form to make a new discovery. John M Barry, the author of The Great Influenza explains how scientific reasoning. Barry compares scientific reasoning as very important, that a scientists works “…May break apart upon the sharp edge of a single laboratory finding.” This idea of his, compares what a scientists work may be with what it actually is.

    Read More

  • Sir Karl Popper's Falsifiability Claim

    765 Words  | 2 Pages

    Sir Karl Popper's Falsifiability Claim. Popper's claim that "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability" (Klemke, 1988) may be viewed as an observation of, rather than a complete departure from, earlier criteria for science. Klemke states in his introduction to part one (p. 16) that defining science (or the scientific method) has traditionally consisted of utilizing seven criteria that must be met in a specific order.

    Read More

  • Philosophy of Science and the Theory of Natural Selection

    4356 Words  | 9 Pages

    In the 1980s, the hitherto-dominant normative-prescriptive conception of philosophy of science became the subject of a debate which continues to the present time. Some philosophers of science suggested that the proper aim of the discipline is the description of scientific evaluative practice.

    Read More

  • The Theory of Scientific Theories

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    Sir Popper's piece, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations," reaffirms the scientific methods currently in use. No scientific theory is ratified without serious consideration and careful observation. Science is the pursuit of what can be proven false and the resulting assumptions of what must be true.

    Read More

  • Division of ‘Art’ and ‘Science’: Comparison of Popper and Woolf’s Theories

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    Popper and Woolf both had touched upon this issue in their works, however doing this in different ways and for different purposes. To be more precise, Popper tried to set up clear line that delineated science from other forms of knowledge, on the contrary, Woolf was trying to blur this line.

    Read More

  • Essay On Hamlet's First Soliloquy Analysis Of Hamlet

    585 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this play we read about a young prince named Hamlet who devotes himself to avenging his father's death. As the play progresses we see that Hamlet is contemplative and demonstrates his true desires and feelings. Hamlet begins to show signs of weakness and his indecision to seek vengeance in his soliloquy “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!”(2.2.560). Hamlet throughout the play is perceived as a weak, emotionally unstable, and cowardly individual.

    Read More

  • Martin Buber’s Dialogic Communication

    2288 Words  | 5 Pages

    ... theory is not scientific because there is no objective understanding of when "dialogue" happens. Dialogue cannot be measured. His theory cannot predict future outcome. Dialogue is a momentary occurrence and by Buber’s definition, cannot be planned or forced. This theory is not simple because it is too involved. It cannot be tested because it is subjective and because of its momentary nature.

    Read More

  • Psychoanalytic Criticism on Emily Dickinson

    1087 Words  | 3 Pages

    Many critics believe that using a psychological criticism approach to understand an author’s literary work leaves common sense behind. For them, such analysis disregards the environment in which an author created their work, as well as disregarding that men and women read differently. One of the main critics of such approach, Karl Popper, states that the creators of psychoanalysis such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Marx “couched their theories in terms which made them amenable only to confirmation.“ What that means is that for Popper, considered one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century, psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because its statements cannot be testable, thus not falsifiable. When a theory cannot be falsifiable, it ends up representing only one side of the spectrum, because if one states, for example, that Emily Dickinson’s poetry is filled with remarks of her childhood and confined adulthood, there would be no counter argument to refute such statement.

    Read More

  • Free Hamlet Essays: Interpretation of Hamlet

    738 Words  | 2 Pages

    This is an example of a phenomenon that we note throughout Hamlet - the separation of what is stated on the surface from the implications a few layers beneath. The play works on two levels - the revenge drama works as a backdrop for Hamlet's internal psychodrama. It is clear that Shakespeare intends for Hamlet's thoughts to be superior to his outward actions in interpretation of the play. After listing all the outward signs of his depression, he tells his mother that he would prefer to be considered on the basis of his thoughts: "These indeed 'seem'/For they are actions that a man might play;/But I have that within which passes show/These but the trappings and the suits of woe" (1.2.86-89). Yet Hamlet, for all the disdain for played action that he shows here, also appreciates its power, in his remarks on the player's soliloquy on Hecuba (2.

    Read More

  • Why Is Kuhn's View Of Scientific Theory Still Relativist?

    2069 Words  | 5 Pages

    In “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” Thomas Kuhn responds to critics who claim that his view of science is relativist. They claim that according to his view, theory choice is solely a matter of subjective opinion rather than one that should be based on objective reasons and facts. In response, Kuhn argues that objective criteria alone are not sufficient to choose a good scientific theory. Rather, theory choice consists of both objective criteria and subjective factors. In this paper, I aim to argue that Kuhn’s view of theory choice does reflect how scientists choose theories and that it is not a relativist view. However, his view of how science works is ultimately still relativist because of his notion of incommensurability.

    Read More

  • Human sciences and natural sciences and the attainment of truth

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.

    Read More

  • Hamlet Character Analysis Essay

    933 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hamlet soul becomes corrupt since the beginning with the sudden marriage of his mother to his uncle, the man who killed his father. His depression is much deeper then what everyone believed. Hamlet tries to explain it to his mother and Claudius that his grief is deeper and is much more then the appearance of someone who mourns. His mother seems cold rather then understanding she tells him to get rid of the black clothes and move on, “Thou kno’st’tis common. All that lives must die passing through nature to eternity.” (1.2.74-75) Claudius too is insensitive and says he over doing it and advises him to stop his “un manly grief.” (1.2.98) This lead to the physical and mental corruption Hamlet faces. He contemplates suicide. Suicides along with murder are against Hamlets religious beliefs and are the wor...

    Read More

More about Karl Popper's Falsifiability

Open Document