Comparison Of Kuhn And Popper 's Understanding Of Science

(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,

1. What does Kuhn mean by the term “normal science?” What does he mean by “paradigm?” How are the two concepts related to each other?

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.

as the unique properties of scientific theories (Popper, 1962, p. 36). I will argue that Popper’s

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. Both articles appear in the textbook to this class.

In the two articles “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” and “The Problem of Induction,” the philosopher Karl Popper expresses discontent with the way that he sees science operating. In the first writing, Popper criticizes contemporary thinkers for supporting their theories with positive evidence. The second article offers a broader critique of the emphasis on confirmation in science. Both present a position that falsifiability, or the potential to be refuted, is the basis of the demarcation between science and non-science. However, Popper’s claim is too narrow and imprecise, as it places too much importance on decisions made by testers, and also restricts the discovering and predicting powers of science.

Kuhn’s criterion of science practically opposes Popper’s notion of falsifiability. Kuhn’s idea of science reduces to two categories: puzzle-solving, normal science and revolutionary science. Popper proposes and interesting and bold conception with just one inference, Kuhn states that

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.

One of the key principles in empirical science is distinguishing whether incoming novel theories are actually scientific or non-scientific. This is referred to as the problem of demarcation. Many different ideas have been proposed in response to this problem in order to demarcate theories and amongst some of the most well-known ones are those of Rudolph Carnap and Karl Popper. Carnap proposes that theories be declared scientific based on whether they can be tested, at least in principle, and labels this his verification criteria. Popper’s method is based on whether a theory has empirical content which is the set of all possible excluded events proposed by a theory. The question is, is it possible to agree with both of these criteria? This

Karl Popper expands this idea by saying that what makes something scientific is the concept of it being falsifiable, rather than a method that results in absolute truth (Jogalekar, 2014). This means that in order for a theory to be scientific it has to have the possibility of being tested to be false or incorrect. According to Popper, this is also

To begin, Kuhn’s model addresses how scientists arrive at new knowledge from periodic revolutions or “paradigm shifts.” “Normal science” is research based on achievements where established rules and standards leave little disagreement among practitioners concerning the fundamentals. Consequently, problem solving uses a predetermined solution that generally fails to account for anomalies. Scientists become aware of this, yet they hold on to the existing theory. This continues until the theory weakens and other possibilities are considered. At a given point, crisis occurs, which may result in a revolution and the subsequent redefining of science and rewriting of texts within the subject area.

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.

Does science consist in the progressive development of objective truth? Contrast the views of Kuhn with one other writer on this topic.

Karl Marx (1818-1883), was a German philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary socialist stated in (Kreis, 2008). Early nineteenth century Marx originally developed Marxism with Friedrich Engel to improve society by implementing socialisms within a political ideology; stated in (Williams, 1973, p. 3) which is based on social groups being driven by creating and maintaining wealth. Based on the

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