Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn 2

Astrologists and a sympathetic community do however provide counter arguments as to why Astrology should be taken seriously. They argue that their methodology is no different from other

Astrology is fraudulent because not only does where the celestial bodies are not affect anything but astrologers cannot even be certain where they are. Even though astrologers did make a lot of correct predictions they only made correct ones because they made so many some of them had to be correct “That the true forecasts given clear beyond any doubt that the true forecasts given by the astrologers when consulted were uttered by chance or by luck, not from the science of studying the stars” (Augustine, IV.6), and that their predictions were “power apparent in lots, a power everywhere diffused in the nature of things. So, when someone happens to consult the

However, Kuhn says that it isn’t necessary to have a full parallelism and that we can gain from relaxing the standard. When scientists change their minds about fundamental matters, Kuhn suggests that this is a necessary part of a philosophical paradigm. He also thinks that scientist’s changing their minds is neither a mistake or all wrong. When crisis’s occur, they suggest what some of the new paradigm’s characteristics will be. Crisis’s are unable to be postponed indefinitely which was demonstrated by Newtonian dynamics. Again, Kuhn suggests that the world doesn’t change when a paradigm changes but the scientist tends to in a different world because their viewpoint changes with the paradigm. Normal science is clarified as aiming to refine, extend, and articulate a paradigm. With paradigms, the interpretation of data is crucial to articulating a paradigm. However, data isn’t able to correct a paradigm. Therefore, normal science leads to the acknowledgement of anomalies and then to

Throughout The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn goes over a common problem that often exists among science, the problem of relativity in conformation with Kuhn’s concept of a paradigm. Many viewed Kuhn’s reply to charges of relativism as mundane, and that his reply may be inadequate. I feel his reply is adequate in the sense that Kuhn accounts for the fact that different people may have different perceptions of reality and that competing viewpoints may both be valid. Kuhn argues that both the skeptic and the relativist are wrong. Potentially, it could be said that Kuhn does not feel that progress in the field of science is a relative concept. However mainly the argument is that Kuhn

This mindset does not take into account the errors science has made in order for it to achieve the accuracy that it has today. Science is not built on success as much as it is built on failure. Through failure a theory can be cast out or reformed but with success comes the dangers of complacency. Graubard never claims that astrology is right, but only that it is too often dismissed as a pseudoscience and a hindrance to science in the 16th century. The main counter example to the aforementioned criticism is that astrology was used to interpret astronomical or medical findings and explain them. Whether this interpretation is right or wrong is not important given the context of anthological reasoning but it provides a deeper understanding of the motivations of early astrologists as well as insight on the progression of astrology and medicine as a whole. As Graubard claims in his premise, Astrology is a fossil science and should be looked at for its value as a historical or fossil

In recent times, there have been three individuals who have provided their interpretations on that structures of science. Thomas Kuhn developed the idea of paradigms, which are nested concepts for looking at the world, and later would propose the idea paradigm shifts for what he called the Kuhn Cycle. Following Kuhn's work, Imre Lakatos and Larry Laudan created their own analysis on scientific structures using Kuhn's work as a base for their own. Lakatos and Laudan both attempted to rationalize and improve on Kuhn's work. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze the differences in Kuhn's work as compared to Lakatos and Laudan and explain which account of scientific structures is the most persuasive to believe in.

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

Because of this, using observations cannot completely verify a theory, it would only verify what a scientist would be looking for. On the other hand, searching for counterexamples to a theory can falsify the theory. In addition, falsification allows more questions to be raised to search for contradiction evidence. This search for falsification of a theory is consequently a better methodology for separating science from non-science(section 3). In addition, Popper believed all scientific theories as being tests for falsification and not verification.

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.

Astrology should be taken more seriously. There are five key reasons that outline the truth of astrology. First, astrology has been used for over six thousand years and was historically considered to be more accurate than medical professionals. Several scientific studies have been conducted to support astrological findings. Several yearly predictions that were made astrologically have been known to come true with a high success rate. Additionally, astrologers use a twelve-sign system to analyze individual personality traits, one study on these predictions held a 96% accuracy rate. Lastly, some psychologists today have taken to using astrology as a diagnosis tool and to treat their clients. These clients responded positively to their treatment.

Thomas Kuhn asserts that sciences more mature than psychology have reached what he describes as a paradigm (Kuhn, 1963). A paradigm is a model, universally accepted by practitioners of a science during the period of its development (Watson, 1966). A paradigm must attract adherents away from approaches that oppose its own, and is sufficiently open-ended so that the problems it leaves can be resolved (Locurto, 2013; Kuhn, 1963). Therefore, a paradigm directs research and defines problems worth solving (Locurto, 2013). With a global acceptance among practitioners a paradigm defines the science it operates under. Kuhn (1963) recognizes that the scientific fields of physics, chemistry, astronomy, and biology all are paradigmatic. Illustrative

According to Popper, when a theory is proven to be false, it should not be used. He describes the common practice of giving theories a "conventionalist twist" as re-interpreting a theory after it has been disproven so that the theory can survive the apparent challenge. Popper says that Marxism is not science because when the theory was refuted, it was altered to explain the apparent refutations within the frames of the Marxist theory. Kuhn argues against this point. He says that introducing "ad hoc" assumptions to save a theory is done all the time in science, and it helps make the theories accurate. Rarely is a theory perfect the first time it is put down on paper. Kuhn thinks that the refinement of theories is an important part of theory development.

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.