ipl-logo

Karl Popper Critical Analysis

965 Words4 Pages

Karl Popper, the renowned philosopher of science, said: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak of reality”. Despite the increasing complexities of modern society and the resultant challenges presented to knowledge since his statement was made in 1934, Popper’s words provide a concise and profound insight into the posed question: Does robust knowledge require both consensus and disagreement? Popper’s work stimulated many thoughts on many things, one such being the role falsifiability plays in producing robust knowledge. Many of us believe in religion or have certain religious beliefs, yet we seldom think about disagreeing with religious concepts. …show more content…

It presents a lot of knowledge that is strengthened by previous scientific paradigms. Also, I have disagreed with many theories or concepts that I have studied in Biology and Chemistry. Yet, the more I disagreed, the more I found that disagreeing strengthened my final product of knowledge gaining. I would look for faults in the theory itself and could therefore use it to derive at a meaningful knowledge question: To what extent does evidence and faith affect consensus and disagreement in religious knowledge systems and the natural sciences? The word “robust”, whether used in a scientific or non-scientific context, creates expectations of strong, reliable, trustworthy and clear qualities. Robust knowledge therefore should be critically examined and reproducible to enjoy …show more content…

Many people have been on statins all their life believing that it is harmful but new studies have shown that cholesterol is good for the body in a moderate amount. There has been various scientific evidence showing that taking statins could most likely be more harmful than not taking any medication to suppress cholesterol levels and instead cholesterol levels could much easily be mained through a diet. Cholesterol has various amount of uses such as having a role in every cell membrane, low levels of cholesterol inhibits production of vitamin D and helps to replace damaged cells. A meta-analysis over 40 000 patients records found that people who took statin drugs for lowering cholesterol had higher risks of cancer. Before 2004, LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy is maintained however it was not recommended to have a level lower than a certain

Show More
Related

  • Btec Health And Social Care Level 3 Unit 10 M1

    538 Words  | 3 Pages

    M1, Introduction There is always a question which can’t be answered by scientist all of which relate to the perceptions of science as there is difference in how science is currently addressed. Also, people have different believes, opinions and interpretation of science in general. Questions science is currently addressing- cure for cancer?

    Read More

  • Cholestoff: Dietary Supplements

    1446 Words  | 6 Pages

    However, before combining Cholestoff with statins, it is important to consult a doctor. The pentethine found in Cholestoff Complete has been shown to work effectively in lowering the levels of cholesterol in the body when it blends with stenols and sterols. The amalgamation produces great results because a blend of stanoils, stenols and statins effectively lowers the cholesterol levels. The combinations also greatly reduces the negative effects of statins are greatly reduced, especially when small doses of phytosterols and statins are

    Read More

  • The Role Of The Gods In Homer's The Odyssey

    1137 Words  | 5 Pages

    People today look for solid evidence to explain their wonderings about natural phenomena “Those with a magnitude higher than 7.0 -- more than doubled in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the average since 1979” (Yan 2). This shows how we rely on evidence to explain what is happening to the planet. Whereas the Greeks in 700 B.C.E. looked towards religion to find a

    Read More

  • Great Influenza Persuasive Speech

    492 Words  | 2 Pages

    Scientists take the unknown and make it known. The audience will better understand the scientific method if it seems logical. Including examples of Einstein, accepting scientific theories, and designing experiments show that the basis of Barry’s argument is factual. “Einstein refused to accept his own theory until his predictions were tested,” showing even the best of the best scientists study with uncertainty. Barry’s appeal to logos helps characterize the intellectual side of science.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Galileo's Daughter By Dava Sobel

    2250 Words  | 9 Pages

    It is important that we accept that religion is Man’s attempt to answer these questions and because it is an institution reliant upon faith, it is acceptable for one to accept Religion as a precursor for complex ideas, and interpret its fallacies as misunderstandings, however, it is unreasonable for one to justify the rejection of science to prevent controversy with the beliefs of religion. Furthermore, it is unreasonable for one to ever justify the rejection of science for any reason, as this praxis clouds the mind and decreases one’s capacity to comprehend the true nature of the universe and the governing laws to which it

    Read More

  • The Myths We Live By Mary Midgley Analysis

    556 Words  | 3 Pages

    Critique of Midgley Although I agree with Mary Midgley’s holistic argument that knowledge has many sources and can be viewed from multiple perspectives, I argue against her flawed, overriding assumption that knowledge is reality that can be discovered. In an excerpt from her book The Myths We Live By, Midgley portrays the world as an aquarium with “a number of small windows” to suggest that ultimately, knowledge can be acquired “if we patiently put together the data from different angles” (Midgley 40). In addition, she points out the dogmatic ignorance that comes with “[insisting] that our own window is the only one worth looking through” (Midgley 40).

    Read More

  • The Perimeter Of Ignorance By Neil Degrasse Tyson

    743 Words  | 3 Pages

    The issue on whether religion and science can work together has been debatable for centuries. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his article the Perimeter of Ignorance argues that science and religion cannot coexist. In his article, the author explains that religion is all about the Bible and the Bible primarily focuses on the explanation of the origin of the world. He puts forth the point that this concept is far different from what science is and that they do not complement each other. This essay intends to prove that religion and science can work together with no issues.

    Read More

  • The Short Documentary Evolution's Achilles Heel

    1086 Words  | 5 Pages

    One thing I found interesting is that the Big Bang is 96% IMAGINARY! Only 4% of it is real which is insane! Cosmology goes to the creationists because it cannot be proven. The final idea of evolution is Ethical Implication. Ethical implications is people from different points of view on evolution.

    Read More

  • Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools Essay

    966 Words  | 4 Pages

    A theory is defined as an explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a compilation of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Theory is not scientific law, which is a natural phenomenon that has been proven as absolute truth. However, in the public-school setting, evolution, a theory concerning the Earth’s origins, is established as an indisputable fact allowing no room for other theories, specifically creationism, to be taught. These two battling theories uphold two opposing perspectives that attempt to explain the creation and development of life.

    Read More

  • Inductivism Vs Falsification Theory

    1172 Words  | 5 Pages

    Falsificationism, though, helped me to understand that induction is good for everyday life, but not for science. I learnt that it is possible to falsify someone’s theory or my theory be falsified, but Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ approaches made me understand that it is better not to abandon a theory even if it is falsified. Research programmes influenced me mostly, since the fundamental hypothesis of the hard core and the supplementary assumptions of the protective belt, can be better applied not only to physics, but also natural sciences. For me science has to be explained in an objective way, so the anarchistic theory of science did not influence me, because it talks about individual’s freedom and subjectivity. Finally, the modern approaches of Bayesianism and New Experimentalism did not satisfy me at all and they did not help me in order to define what science is.

    Read More

  • How Did Christianity Influence The Scientific Revolution

    826 Words  | 4 Pages

    The research that does not show the impact of Christianity on the scientific Revolution mostly question if it was even necessary on the Birth of Science. Also, the

    Read More

  • Taves's Theory Of Religion Essay

    905 Words  | 4 Pages

    The likelihood of getting believers to accept a single theory is slim anyway. If the theory advances some dimension religious scholarship, why should it matter? However, this experience made me realize that advancing scholarship might need to take second seat to the beliefs of the people we study. If my friend is comforted by believing that there was a special force that reached out to her when her grandfather died, why force her to examine it further? If her happiness and a deeper understanding of the experiences are mutually exclusive, why should her happiness be less

    Read More

  • Robust Knowledge Is False In The Mathematics Area Of Knowledge

    1600 Words  | 7 Pages

    I find that areas of knowledge based on sense perception often require constant consensus and consistent disagreement to ensure that the developed knowledge is robust. Alternatively, if the main way of knowing is faith, such as in religion or mathematics (believing in the closed axiomatic system), then there is no disagreement, yet the claims are irrefutable because they are based in faith, and as such, once accepted allow knowledge to be created and justified through all standards of truth. My response to this claim that “robust knowledge requires both consensus and disagreement” is that I agree with a modified version of this title, that robust knowledge from areas of knowledge based in sense perception requires both consensus and

    Read More

  • Differences Between Science And Pseudoscience

    1410 Words  | 6 Pages

    A number of basic standards for determining a body of knowledge, methodology, or practice are widely agreed upon by scientists. One of the basic notion is that all experimental results should be reproducible, and able to be verified by other individuals.[13] This standard aim to ensure experiments can be measurably reproduced under the same conditions, allowing further investigation to characterize whether a hypothesis or theory related to given phenomena is valid and reliable. Philosopher Karl Popper (?) in one of his project attempted to draw the line between science and pseudo-science.

    Read More

  • Similarities Between Natural Science And Mathematics

    1000 Words  | 4 Pages

    In mathematics the knowledge we obtain is justified with reason that have straightforward theories and laws. In natural science on the other hand the information we collect is firstly obtained with observations which can be perceived in the wrong manner and then carried out wrong after that, in the natural world things are always changing therefore the results we get now won’t necessarily be correct one hundred years down the line therefore the knowledge we have now of the natural sciences is correct until proven wrong. Knowledge is trustworthy in most of our subjects at school but we can never know if the information we are receiving is 100% accurate or not because in the future we may learn that the information we have is

    Read More

More about Karl Popper Critical Analysis

Open Document