The progression of science is passed down from researchers over the centuries from generation to generation. It is hard to believe that our current world has not progressed from what it once was hundreds of years ago, but has scientific change helped aim at the truths and inner meanings of humanity. Philosophy and science have always gone hand in hand in trying to enable the uncovered truths about the world we live in. Although there is that assumption where science will always remain in a constant state of progression, it does not quite fully tell us if science aims for the most accurate truth. Like most science experiments, scientists gather information and compile it up to test if their hypothesis is verifiably true or not. Philosophers such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn show contrasting views in figuring …show more content…
The truth of anything has come from proven existence. Although there are truths that may be discovered in the future, as for the present we have to rely on what has been proven already to work. Falsifiability is the cornerstone to distinguishing non-science from science. Karl Popper wrote several articles in the book, Philosophy of Science: Conjectures and Refutations, where he explains how he came up with his falsifiability criterion for the scientific status of a theory. Popper ultimately concluded that a theory must take a risk by predicting something new to have any chance of it being considered scientific. Popper advocated that, “Falsifiability (testability), not verifiability (confirmability), as the demarcation criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience” (Philosophy of Science: Popper, 53). Popper’s understanding between science and