Compare and contrast Kuhn’s explanation of scientific revolution with Popper’s falsification theory
Kuhn and Popper are two well established philosopher who introduced ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolution’ and the ‘Theory of Falsifiability’ respectively. Kuhn was a critique of Popper’s work. He introduced the terms normal science, revolutionary science and paradigm. Popper on the other hand refuted logical positivism and established the Theory of Falsifiability. He suggested the usage of deduction rather than induction in scientific work. His theory also accepts that truth is not attainable and theories are rejected when they can be falsified. Falsification was also used as the distinguisher between science and non-science, something which …show more content…
However, Popper did not formally acknowledge his involvement with Pragmatism although a high affinity to that philosophical concept can be noticed in his work. Popper’s knowledge of natural science with his views on social science are limited to economics. Popper’s main aim was to provide guidelines to scientists on the progression and development of normative philosophy of science. Popper agreed with Rudolph Carnap, one of the members of the Vienna Circle that philosophy would earn from how natural science work. He also agreed with the two characteristics of Vienna Circle; first, the empiricist and positivist, where knowledge can only be obtained from experience and secondly that scientific conception can be obtained by logical analysis. Thus, Popper believed that scientist should be critical and they should be able to test their views with empirical evidence and rational discussion. However, he rejected positivism especially logical positivism and questioned the principles of ‘inductivism’ and ‘verificationism’. Popper rejected classical inductivist views on the scientific method and was in favor of empirical falsification which he is well known for. Furthermore, as David Hume had already showed that experience cannot be verified, Popper believes that only falsification can be used for empirical process of …show more content…
In order to maintain the empirical certainty of inferences obtained through the deductive method, ‘the universal law premise must be empirically certain’. However, Popper pointed out that there is no proof that the universal law premise is empirically certain, because the sun rises every day, there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow. Popper argued on the relevance of induction and furthermore, he agreed with Hume’s problem of induction. He pointed out that induction cannot be logically justified. Although there is a psychological belief that the sun will rise tomorrow because sun has risen every day in the pass, there is no rational justification for that conception. Uniformity of nature cannot be
Yuuyaraq: The Way of Human Being (1994) describes the social issue of alcoholism as crippling a whole society. Napoleon hopes to shed light on the cultural breakdown that contributed to this phenomenon. Describing his personal battle with alcoholism, along with how it has changed the course of his life. Through Napoleon’s account of the Yup-ik history, we will compare the difference in science, religion and apply The Purnell Model for Cultural Competence to understand the cultural significance of this event. Western Science
This reflects on the argument that Scientific Revolution's research was not politically and socially motivated. There is a question if the methods in modern science were originally 'pure science'? Or do their origins have personal motives behind
The scientific method is paramount to scientists and their studies. Barry affirms, “Ultimately a scientist
If society were to imply that our best thinkers and scientists had no uncertainties, we as a community would be committing a grave mistake. Without the skepticism of great scientists like Thomas Edison, the inventor of the light bulb and one of society's most significant creations of all time, or Albert Einstein, who developed the theory of relativity of gravity, who was confident he could produce such a thing. He experimented and performed tests many times. Without his doubts and willingness to overcome all his mistakes, he would not have made this discovery. Another example of doubt and certainty being prevalent in the field of science is the wide variety of psychological beliefs such as structuralism, functionalism, and behavioralism.
As time went from the 16th century to the 18th century, the Renaissance thinking transformed to the Scientific Revolution. Soon, it would enable a worldview in which people were not invoking the principles of religion as often as the Renaissance. As an example, these natural philosophers, known as scientists today, developed a new thinking in which the world was no longer geocentric. The thought of an Earth-centered universe as the Bible would say, transformed as heliocentric or in other words Sun-centered. Within this period, Scientists were starting to understand the world’s functions, for they created experiment methods incorporating discipline, mathematics, and the essential Scientist communication.
There were scientific findings before the 16th century and there were more to follow the 18th century. Shapin’s thesis covers that there was no specific scientific distinction between the 17th century and the rest of time for this period to stand out and be a revolution but he explains that the Scientific Revolution is more of a process. Shapin still believes that the scientific findings of this time can be considered revolutionary. Shapin explains that “Science remains whatever it is-certainly the most reliable body of natural knowledge we have got” (165) to show that he still understands how important science and the findings in science are to the world and civilization.
In making the argument for the existence of the Law of Human Nature, C.S. Lewis first establishes the acknowledgement of a few different universal laws that man in subjected to. There is the law of gravity, in which Lewis insinuates that in the eyes of gravity, the body of man and a mere stone are one and the same. Then there are biological laws that correspond with those than an animal has. However, the one law that is specific to man and that man is free to disobey or get “mistaken”, is the “Law of Nature or decent behavior” (Lewis). C.S. Lewis uses inductive reasoning to form this kind of logic by first making the observation that even though throughout time man has seemed to have had different agreements of what they believe to be moral,
In conclusion, the characteristics of the scientific method are far from few. Most distinctly, science deals with the uncertainty of the unknown, attempting to make it known. Though complicated, Barry explains his beliefs on the scientific method with strong diction to show the formality of science, rhetorical questions to show the uncertainty, and logos to show the intellect of science. His rhetorical strategies help the audience understand the plethora of characteristics in the realm of
During the sixteenth and seventeenth century, many scientists had developed a new perspective on the world around them. Scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus envisioned a world where natural phenomenons could be proved through experimentation. Furthermore, the work of scientists during this time period were affected by the approval of political figures, the support from influential members of the church, and social factors that influenced the development and acceptance of new theories. To powerful political figures, scientific theories were regarded as an opportunity to gain power and money.
He thought there was something special on the science side of the line. Under the assumption that science has suitable methodology for avoiding false beliefs, one of the problems with pseudo-science is that it gets an unfair development by mimicking the surface appearance of science. The big difference Popper identifies between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. Popper believes while a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false, a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims.
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.