Popper’s Falsification
Karl Popper’s Falsification was formulated in the early half of the 1900’s when there were many theories claiming to be scientific. Some of these included Einstein’s theory of relativity, Freud’s psychoanalysis, Adler’s Individual psychology, and Marxism. Popper, after studying these theories began to perceive a problem. The problem was called demarcation, and its question was what criteria distinguish real science from pseudo-science. Popper found a solution to this problem by looking at the theories in question. What he noticed was that in Einstein’s theory of relativity there were clear observations, such as light not bending, that if seen would expose his theory as being false. This was unlike the rest of the theories that seemed to find confirmations everywhere and be able to explain anything. Popper found this power of explanation, which seemed at first very forceful and compelling, was actually their greatest weakness. With these thoughts in mind Popper had come up with an answer to the problem of demarcation, he called it falsification. Popper said that real science follows a falsification method, and does not practice conventionalism. He said scientists formulate theories that are falsifiable. They then
I like Popper’s falsification. It relies only on deduction which makes it stronger in a logical sense. I also like the creativity that is able to be brought in and used successfully. The innate knowledge brought in by Popper’s explanation of observation concerns me a little bit because it opens up a whole new argument, but it is certainly something to think about. I like that falsification can be extended into other aspects of humankind other than science such as social and political arenas. Over all I really like falsification, so from now on I might have to start considering myself a Popparian. In addition to using this falsifying method in science, Popper maintains we also use it in general perception and observation. What he suggests is that there is a certain logic of observation. He articulates that there is to much to observe and in order to be able to focus we need generalizations and theories. This leads him to the conclusion that all observation presupposes generalization or theory. In order for Popper to form this view however, he must be willing to accept innate knowledge. Besides debating real science versus pseudo-science Popper goes a step further in explaining how his method works in real science as a prediction is tested. He says that in real science when a prediction is found to be false, scientists assert the experimental conditions and assumptions and drive the refutation through unless they can clearly say what the problem is with either the experimental conditions or the assumptions. Adjustments can be made to the experimental conditions or the assumptions if they meet two criteria. The adjustments must account for the failed prediction and they must allow new successful predictions to be made. If
Some topics in this essay:
Nagel Duhem,
Marxism Popper,
Popper’s Falsification,
real science,
experimental conditions assumptions,
Adler’s Individual,
future resembles past,
theory relativity,
conditions assumptions,
popper’s falsification,
resembles past,
future resembles,
experimental conditions,
pseudo-science popper,
theory true probably,
past 3000 sun,
innate knowledge,
sun probably,
sun probably tomorrow,
Join now to see the rest of the essay!
Approximate Word count = 1174
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
Example Essays Home
