The truth of science: Empiricists versus Popper versus Kuhn Abstract This paper is going to discuss the truth of science throughout the past centuries. So the Empiricists, who believed in truth by observation. And how Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) tried to get closer to a better scientific model by fal- sification and paradigm shifts respectively. 1 Introduction For as far as we know through writings and draw- ings people have always been interested in doing some kind of science. The word science comes from the Latin word ”scientia”, which means ”knowl- edge”. The Egyptians, Greek, Chinese and Romans already had ideas about science. Some of these sci- entific ideas were nicely documented and preserved. Up until the 20th century people used induction1 as means of proof without questioning the principles of induction. This paper is going to explain why ac- cording to Popper induction was not the way to do ”good science”. And how Popper thought science 1Induction is a specific form of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support a conclusion, but do not ensure it.[7] worked. Then compare this with the way Kuhn ar- gued science worked. 2 Definitions First …show more content…
He thought that induction was not a valid proof technique. Scientists should be critical and skeptical. Trying to reach the truth was ”one of the strongest motives for scientific discovery”[1]. But ’the truth’ does not exist according to Popper. We only get closer to it. This is why he introduced the concept of falsification. Which is, instead of try- ing to prove something is true, you try to prove it’s false. If you find a counter example, the hypothesis is rejected. If you can’t falsify2 it, your hypothesis become a rule until someone can falsify it. So the more you falsify, the closer we get to the truth (ac- cording to
The passage is mainly talking about Professor Wolfs and what he teaches his students and what he tells him what to do when in a scienctific related problem. Professor Wolfs talks about a method, "the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate representation of the world. " This is what he tells his students. For the limitation of a scienctific method, you must look threw some research, form a hypothesis to use in the future for studys and tests. Use the hypothesis you made and expirement with it to see if the results are true or false.
Berry uses an example to support his claim. He speaks about a man named Claude Bernard, a “French physiologist,” as well as inserting a quote,”Science teaches us to doubt.” Putting this quote within the paragraph explains to
The Discourse on Method exhorted the reader to doubt everything. It advised him to take as false what was probable, to take as probable what was called certain, and to reject all else. The free-thinker should believe that it is was possible to know everything and should relinquish doubt only on proof. The senses were to be doubted initially, because they were also the source of hallucination; even mathematics might be doubted, since God might make a man believe that 2 and 2 made 5. With this book, Descartes revolutionized the form of scientific arguments.
Western science follows a distinct set of rules and reasoning, problem-solving using mathematical equations and hypothesis. Moreover, specific data is studied, tested and logically expressed in theories and
Naive inductivism or good science, says to observe and record all the data. This first step alone is an immense task that in fact impossible to accomplish. Using the example from essay one, before doing anything, Dr. Semmelweis would have had to record every single fact about the women who were infected with the fever. This data could have included the women’s diet, their health prior to being pregnant, their home environment, weather conditions when the women were infected, etc. The point being that all the data about the women would have to be recorded and this would take a long time making naive inductivism weak before even looking at its other
Was Christianity responsible, as some historians have argued, or perhaps even necessary, for the rise of modern science? These topics of religion and science are ones with a tumultuous history, a history that even today is fraught with inconstancies and unknowns. Wether or not they will ever be reconciled is still up for debate, but one thing is certain, it wont be any time soon. There seems to be two distinct sides to this argument, those who believe that Christianity played a starring role in the creation of the sciences, and those who don’t. Those who claim that Christianity played a pivotal role in the development of science, offer up many arguments in support of these claims.
Mainly because there was no way of proving his thoughts. Everything was purely based off of assumption and systematic restrictions. In order for this idea to be deemed as scientific, it must be something that is not only
A famous quote by Immanuel Kant embodies this method, “I think, therefore I am,” consequently he encourages everyone to doubt widely accepted views on anything. It is this general curiosity that ignites people into making great strives to either prove or disprove natural concepts about the world and often, sanctioned ideas of the church. Comte de Buffon challenged many clerical beliefs on world, such as, “claim that fossil evidence indicated that the world and life itself were far older than the church has recognized” (Hyland 131). Buffon’s works like “How to Study Natural History” is a great example on how thinkers like him, went great lengths to create a more logical understanding on why Earth is the way it is today. Political punishment and disagreement from others only fueled the fire for a scientific
This change to the Scientific Method was extremely important to the way ideas were tested and proven. This was a distinct change from the medieval methods that the Europeans were using until around the beginning of the seventeenth century. Before the Scientific Revolution science was still based on Aristotle’s ideas. The scientists believed that the Earth was still and that there were only four elements. The scientific adoption of the Scientific Method was advancement in science because of the testing of hypothesis’ and data collection.
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.
A fallacy is defined as a mistake in an argument that arises from defective reasoning or the creation of an illusion that makes a bad argument appear good. In layman terms, Dictionary.com defines a fallacy as a deceptive, misleading or false notion, belief, etc. It is a misleading or unsound argument. Both inductive and deductive arguments may contain fallacies and if they do, they are usually uncogent or unsound. Fallacies are divided into two groups which are formal fallacy and informal fallacy.
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.
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.
Galileo was saying if it is truth than another truth cannot disprove it. Truth is proven, not debatable and can never be disproven. If it is truth than it is a fact and other facts (in this case new discoveries) cannot disprove what is real truth. Even though Galileo we don’t know whether the discoveries or religious beliefs he was arguing are correct the point is the philosophical statement he was making about truth. Once something is known to be truth, it will stay truth and is something to be trusted
Even if it might provide us incorrect data or if there was a problem in the process of application, this can later be opted out and people will know what is not right and hence could search for alternative methods. Moreover, the field of Natural sciences has been based on paradigm shifts. Our knowledge of what was previously regarded as the absolute truth has been turned out to be false several times and has been replaced by relatively “more perfect” knowledge. Therefore, even if the results obtained through application could lead to results that is not in accordance with people’s expectation, this, in the long term, can possibly lead to progression of knowledge that is much closer to the absolute truth and hence the extrinsic value of knowledge will increase through