Popper's Theory Of Scientific Progress Essay

Karl Popper was a twentieth-century philosopher that had a dissatisfaction with the definition of what could be considered a “science.” The claim of falsification, being able to equally be observed false, made Popper’s argument of demarcation appealing to those with the same inquiries about the method of scientific progress. Popper said to be defined as a real science, one needs to make risky, bold predictions that could easily be refuted by observation. I will argue that the construction of Popper’s scientific progress is flawed due to the refutations of infinite hypotheses and observational unreliability.

The theories that Popper thought of as acceptable for scientific testing were those that made predictions that were daring and willing to be proven wrong. Einstein’s theory of

Feyerabend and Hanson’s rebuttals against this form of scientific progress weren’t meant to show that observation needs to be completely thrown out from the scientific community. The two argued that there needs to be some coherence between the theory and the observations. Observations are negotiable. They can be rejected and give those against it a reason to hold onto their own theory, like in the case of Ptolemiacs and the Galileo observations. Because of the refutations of the reliability of Galileo’s telescope, those that supported Ptolemy could simply reject the telescopic findings and hold onto their views. What you expect from testing your prediction depends on what theory you already have in mind. Duhem and Quine show that there is actually no way to prove a hypothesis true unless you know all the auxiliary assumptions are true as well, yet there are an almost infinite number of assumptions needed to also be proved true. I believe that neither argument is fatal to Popper’s demarcation theory, but call for a reevaluation of how much emphasis he puts on