Summary Of Popper's Falsificationism

Imre Lakatos in his work “Falsificationism and the Methodology of Scientific Reseaerch Programmes”, stated that “The clash between Popper and Kuhn is not about a mere technical point in epistemology. It concerns our central intellectual values, and has implications not only for theoretical physics but also for the underdeveloped social sciences and even for moral and political philosophy” (Lakatos, 1970). Thus, this Popper-Kuhn debate is regarded as a milestone for philosophy of science in the 20th century. The focus of this debate is on the following; relativism versus realism, science progression, and rationality.

3.1 Relativism versus Realism Popper protested Kuhn's perspectives in light of the fact that they represented relativism. Popper,

He focuses that it is a risky doctrine that the distinctive frameworks resemble commonly untranslatable languages. Popper was by all account not the only one who imagined that Kuhn was relativist, "There is no one else than Thomas Kuhn who contributed more to the across the board acknowledgment of psychological relativism in the late years." (Watanabe, 1991) Popper did in the end acknowledge that he had misjudged Kuhn's perspectives. He says of the view that examination of various scientific theories requires a consensus on the general framework, a view with which he opposes this idea. He composes “... I originally had in mind Thomas Kuhn ... However, as Kuhn points out, this interpretation was based on a misunderstanding of his views and I am very ready to accept his correction. Nevertheless, I regard the view here discussed as influential.” (Popper, 1994) The additional comments clear up Kuhn's position with respect to the charge of relativism. For Kuhn, paradigms give perception its structure and, subsequently, they characterize and make reality. For Kuhn, the world, in some sense, changes across paradigms. Kuhn composes: "Though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist afterward works in a different world.” (Kuhn,