Essay on Karl Popper's Falsifiability

Galileo might be the most famous person in the development of astronomy. He is famous, not only because of the amazing work he did to advance Copernican theory of heliocentrism, but also because of the controversy that surrounded him. Using new methods and instruments, he provided compelling new evidence to support Copernican theory. He also contributed to the development of theories of physics that could account for the movements of bodies in new terms. His observations of the movements of objects in the heavens required different explanations than the old ideas about the heavens. It required him, and others, to begin to understand the reasons to explain these new observations. His efforts to publicize his findings was met by

We discover scientific knowledge in various natural science fields such as biology or chemistry. A common misconception about the natural sciences is that both the knowledge they reveal to us and the scientific method used in discovering this are purely analytical. This means that these sciences are rigid in facts and do not contain any subjectivity or creativity. However, the scientific method is not a rigid system of pursuing measurable facts. It contains fallacies and biases. In testing hypotheses, performing observations, or reasoning inductively, science is undoubtedly flawed and erroneous. Paradigms, commonly seen as infallible and containing rather insignificant errors, contribute to many of the errors involved in scientific

This idea backed up with firm evidence went strictly against previous data and evidence that alluded to the contrary, which pointed to the Lunarians could never have existed on Earth. Several quotes from Hogan throughout the novel can analyzed and recognized as philosophical, such as “The trail behind this rapid succession of new developments was … littered with the abandoned carcasses of dead ideas,” (Hogan, pg 133) and “Lights burned through the night at Houston … as the same inevitable chains of reasoning were reeled out again and yet again, the same arrays of facts scrutinized for new possibilities or interpretations.” (Hogan, pg 149). The quotes shown above parallel with Popper’s idea of critical pluralism, and how people hold on and believe in one solid truth until it is shattered and replaced with a more substantiated truth. In particular of this novel, it is difficult for the scientists to agree with one universal truth since both pieces of evidence are seemingly irrefutable and crash into each

He believes that his idea of heliocentric was straightforward

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

To prove Copernicus’ theory, he also observed Jupiter’s four moons with his telescope. Because he worked to find evidence for Copernicus’ theory, this suggests how Copernicanism influenced him and his discoveries. In addition to his discovery on Jupiter, in his Letters on Sunspots, it was seen as necessary for Galileo to mention Copernicus, since the Earth’s motion was a key factor in explaining the position of satellites. Since he publicly mentions Copernicanism, this shows how he incorporated Copernicus’ theory into his own works. Copernicus’ theory was a model for many astronomers since his view on the universe was mathematically advanced.

For this week reading, I had the pleasure to read from the authors Karl Popper, Edward O. Wilson, and Vandana Shiva. Karl Popper, philosopher and author of Science as Falsification, believed the scientific method was made to seem quite easy to be placed yet mistaken due to claims of palm reading or astrology making a status in the field of science. Karl Popper says, " There was a lot of popular nonsense talked about these theories, and especially about relativity (as still happens even today)..."(Popper 338). People don't really question the field of science and theories that are being stated. People go along with what is being stated and not question the theories. A theory or an idea should not be classified as scientific unless proven so

“Part of science is to be taken as significant and expressible within E, and the rest as non-significant and falling outside E. The E portion is subject to attributions of truth and falsehood, belief and evidence, whereas the non-E portion is not. Yet the fictionalist cannot spurn the latter wholly, since he is prepared to admit its functional ‘legitimacy’ and, hence, its interest for the scientist. At most, he can deny it to be either true or false.” (Scheffler 185).

If the outcome of an experiment contradicts the theory, one should refrain from ad hoc manoeuvres that evade the contradiction merely by making it less falsifiable. Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justifications account of knowledge which he replaced with critical rationalism, "the first non-justification philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy.””(The Free Press of Glencoe,

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 the article, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria that a theory must meet for it to be considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of demarcation. Popper summarizes his arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Kuhn

The Catholic Church played an important role at the time when all the works in which the movement of the earth was admitted, Catholics were forbidden to teach, and even read, the Copernican theories. The “Copernican Theory” modeled some problems of enormous importance for Christian’s obviously theological nature. Leaders like Martin Luther and John Calvin told us that Scripture brandished against Nicolaus Copernicus and provoked repression against its followers, but generally abandon the fight Protestantism once the “Theories of Copernicus” were confirmed with indisputable evidence. In this paper, I will first evaluate the history about how “Copernican Theory” and its model of the earth came into existence. I will also analyze the “Copernican Theory” in light of Churches idea of the earth being flat. I will ultimately argue that Nicolaus Copernicus played an important role in the history of Philosophy of Science.

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

Karl Popper was critical of inductive methods used in science. He argued that there is a chain of justifying arguments that could never be complete, therefore an original statement that is made can never receives the justification that it needs (Popper 505-506). He was a firm believer in the concept of falsification, emphasizing that we can never be sure that a theory is true but we can be sure that a theory is false. He continues to explain that all inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. Popper identifies that no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory there is always potential for future observations to refute the claim (Popper 426). For example, if millions of white swans were observed, using inductive reasoning, we could come up with a theory that all swans are white. However, no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this information does not provide us with justification for the conclusion that all swans are white (Popper 426). Therefore induction cannot yield certainty. For scientists to continue to rely on inductive reasoning to

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat