Comparing Carnap And Popper Propose Two Different Criteria

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

Wikipedia defines Scientific theory, as often seeks to synthesize a body of evidence or observations of phenomena. It's generally -- though by no means always -- a grander, testable statement about how nature operates. I see scientific theory as having a great deal of support backing it to support and accepted it as true.

Copernicus’s theory declares “the sun to be situated motionless in the center of the revolution of the celestial orbs while the earth revolves about the sun” (Moss, 1983) which seemed to be in disagreement with religious justifications. The church dreaded the idea of “science” and the repressed truth exposed by scientists

When we talk about science, many people hear the term “theory”. The definition of a scientific theory can become confusing since many people interpret the meaning differently. When a person uses the term “theory” in a sentence it is usually used in a non-scientific way. They assume that a theory is something assumed, but not proven. When the term “theory” is used in science, it means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. It has been tested and confirmed as a general principle to explain phenomena. A scientific theory must be based on careful examination of facts. “A theory is a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that has stood the

Rudolf Carnap and A.J. Ayer were the key proponents of this position, but were swiftly rejected by Alonzo Church and Richard Swinburne, who contested that with this standard for truth, no metaphysical statement could ever be probed true or false empirically religious or not, and that even if a theory about reality is verifiable based on prior observations and validations, empirical evidence does only to reaffirm a belief about reality based on a structure of propositions verified in the same way - in this way, they can never be conclusively verifiable.

(51, Ladyman) Popper’s method of devising a solution to the induction problem is by arguing that inductive inferences do not detract from the justification of scientific knowledge. Specifically, Popper argues that scientific knowledge is entirely independent of all inductive reasoning; this response is heavily based on the concept that science is founded in the falsification of theories. Ladyman comments that Popper’s conceptualization of scientific knowledge is entirely deductive due to the inferences of falsified instances. (69,

In the seventeenth century the philosopher David Hume posed the problem of induction. This problem addresses the difference between science and observations. This essay will discuss how several hundred years later Popper came in with a solution to Hume’s problem. However, many other philosophers will come a long and critique Popper’s solution. The biggest critique Popper’s solution does not follow the scientific method. With out proper scientific backing Popper’s theory is invalid.

For Popper disproof is of bigger relevance than proof is and therefore science should not stop attempting to disprove theories throughout the process of falsificationism. The harder it is tried to falsify a theory or to disprove a theory the more relevance and credibility the theory attains. All knowledge is hypothetical according to Popper as we can never prove a theory, but only refute it or confirm it.

In Karl Popper’s paper “Science as Falsification”, he attempted to explain what exactly separates hard science from pseudoscience. He came to the conclusion that all theories which are to be deemed scientific must be falsifiable. In other words, the theory must have the ability to be tested and proven to be true, and not just deemed to be true because it happens to be true in some instances. Popper’s logic was that the only reason to test a theory was to find a way to deem it untrue, and so theories which are unable to be tested cannot be considered as science. I believe that this was a great turning point in the history of science because there were many theories which were considered as scientific because there was no basis of proving them otherwise.

The following essay aims to discuss the inconsistencies between the inductivist and Popper’s points of view of science rationality of science in light of claims that the scientific method is inductive yet an inductive method is no. I think is rational to say that inductivist view of science has significant contradiction that Popper’s view solves. To support Popper’s view my argument will introduce the inductivist and falsificationsist views and I will focus in showing the issues of considered science as objective, scientific knowledge as proven and nature as uniform as well as the differences between inductivism and falsificationism to the creation of hypothesis.

In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper’s view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn.

Karl Popper is commonly regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th Century. He is well known for his rejection of the inductivist viewpoint of the scientific method, in which one uses observation to propose a law to generalize an observed pattern, and later confirm that law through more observation. Popper states that “induction cannot be logically justified” (Popper 14). Inductivism relies on the process of inductive reasoning which is a logical process in which multiple premises, all thought to be true and found to be true most of the time, are combined to obtain a conclusion and in many cases formulate a law or theory. Popper rejected the inductivist viewpoint in favor of a theory called empirical falsification which holds that a theory can never be proven, but it can be falsified, and therefore it can and needs to be scrutinized through experimentation.

Popper and Kuhn held differing views on the nature of scientific progress. As seen in Popper’s falsification theory, he held that theories can never be proved only disproved or falsified. Once a theory is proved false we move on to the next. Kuhn, on the other, hand argued a new paradigm may solve puzzles better than the old one but you cannot describe the old science as false. Both seem to share the Kantian idea that the really real, independently existing world is completely unknowable. Kuhn further asserts that the empirical world, which is knowable, is partly constructed by our categories and concepts. The fundamental difference in their views are best stated in Kuhn’s own words, “A very different approach to this whole network of problems has been developed by Karl R. Popper who denies the existence of any verification procedures at all. Instead he emphasizes the importance of falsification, i.e., of the test that, because its outcome is negative, necessitates the rejection of an established theory. Clearly, the role thus attributed to falsification is much like the one this essay assigns to anomalous experiences, i.e., to experiences that, by evoking crisis, prepare the way for a new theory. Nevertheless, anomalous experiences may not be identified with falsifying ones.”(Kuhn, 145) As seen by this passage, the fundamental difference between Popper and Kuhn is that Popper disregards “verification” and Kuhn asserts that “falsification” only takes place once a

Laudan (1983) claimed that the problem of demarcation can be traced back to ancient Greece and Aristotle. Aristotle asserted that from general laws one can deduce scientific theories that are consequently truthful statements. Pseudoscientific theories according to Aristotle are not deductively formulated and therefore cannot be considered scientific. However this method of demarcation is flawed: pseudosciences such as astrology can be vacuously true and most are reluctant to say astrology is scientific. We can already see from this early stage that the distinctions between science and pseudoscience are murky and the formulation of demarcation can be challenging.

In the natural sciences, theories may not be proven experimentally correct; however, it can be falsified through experimental evidence. Aristotle’s idea of spontaneous generation, organisms descending from inanimate matter, was falsified by Pasteur. As Pasteur’s falsification was drawn from the cell theory, this shows how scientific theories are