Karl Popper 's Philosophy Of Science

1663 Words7 Pages
When one gets asked, “what is science?” The answer may seem straightforward: biology, physics, chemistry, etc. However, asking the same question to a philosopher, the answer is completely different. In other words, Philosophers are not asking for a mere list of sciences but, are seeking to answer one specific question: What is it that makes something a science. In further detail, the Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Therefore, the three main questions are: what qualify as science, how reliable are scientific theories, and what is the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). In this essay, I will be introducing and discussing Karl popper’s philosophy of science and its criticisms. To begin, Karl popper’s philosophical view of science is often referred to falsificationism, something to be proven false. This is shown through this example: If Socrates is a god, then Socrates is immortal. Socrates is not immortal. Therefore, Socrates is not a god. In other words, Popper’s philosophy of science is that scientific knowledge progresses by a series of conjectures and refutations; these
Get Access