Science Should Progress Through Falsification And Demarcation As A Way For Distinguish Real Scientific Theories From Pseudoscience

approach, or top-down approach, moves from general theoretical or hypothetical to specific data (Creswell, 2003, p. 167). Using this approach, the researcher generalizes findings related to a

The scientific method continues to be misrepresented in public schools all over the world. Students are being taught that there is a beginning and an end to the scientific method, and that everything in between is protocol and must be followed chronologically. “Ask a question, do some research, come up with a hypothesis, conduct an experiment, understand your data, make your conclusion!” a grade six science teacher will tell their students. “It’ll be on your quiz!”. However, what those students are not being taught is that the scientific method has never been, and will never be a linear process. Scientists constantly revisit different steps of the process in order to better understand the subject matter; sometimes it can take many years to

In philosophy of science the goal is to prove a certain hypothesis or induce one from observational data. However Popper had a different view on the methodology of proving theories (in this case scientific) and believed that general statements that are used to form specific conclusions cannot be accepted, as they need an inference to begin with thus impermissible by deductive reasoning. An example of this is saying that “All swans are white”, it is much easier to prove that not all swans are white by finding a single case where our hypothesis fails rather than validating each case for which our hypothesis holds. Delving deeper into falsification it is important to note that falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are arguments opposing a theory but rather it is possible to have a scenario, which would invalidate it or disprove it. Building on his theory Popper wanted to emphasize the idea that no theory is completely correct, unless it is shown to be falsifiable and supported with evidence. A famous example of an unfalsifiable scenario with supporting evidence is as follows, "The earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was

Deductive reasoning entails the argument in which the hypothesis is true and, therefore, the conclusion remains to be true. This argument follows a correct logical form whereby if the hypothesis is true then its conclusion is valid and if the premises are untrue then the conclusion is invalid. Louis Pojman explicates that deductive reasoning preserves the truth, and the arguments are of soundness while;

There are some demarcations to science from pseudo-science and non-science (Hansson, 2008). Science aims to unravel the way the natural world is and explain how it is and why it works in a particular manner (Hobson, 2001 & Bunge, 1982). It answers few of these questions by demonstrating the cause and the effects of various actions by presenting in descriptive and explanatory claims (Parse, 1995). Scientists prove their findings by explaining

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.

Science and Pseudoscience differ in many ways. Science uses experimentation to accept or reject the hypothesis being tested while pseudoscience only looks for evidence to support the hypothesis often ignoring conflicting evidence. In science reproducible results are required before coming to a conclusion while in pseudoscience will often fail to successfully reproduce similar results. Science also argues with scientific information based of experimentation while pseudoscience lacks scientific evidence when supporting ideas. All and all the two contrast in many ways these being some of the most prominent.

Unlike inductivists, falsificationists believe that there is no way to conclusively prove that a theory is true. Consequently, they will resist stating that they’ve proved a theory to be true. Instead, falsificationists will consider a theory to be true so long as it has not been proven to be false. Unlike the strict five-step process held by the inductivist account of science, falsificationists hold that scientific progress comes about “by trial and error, by conjectures and refutations” (Chalmers 60). In the falsificationist picture, theory change happens constantly, and this process is what constitutes scientific progress. “It can never be said of a theory that it is true, however well it has withstood rigorous tests, but it can hopefully be said that a current theory is superior to its predecessors in the sense that it is able to withstand tests that falsified those predecessors” (Chalmers

Pseudoscience is fiend science, “science” that usually does not have a structured theory of organized facts, testable predictions, or evidence to stimulate further investigation to be considered scientific (K.W. Brown, personal communication, September, 5, 2017). Pseudoscience usually represent themselves in case studies- methods in research that only apply to one individual or a small group, which is uncertain to work on another or smaller population. Most beliefs of Pseudoscience even goes against the basic criteria for what creates a scientific question. The Scientific Method makes certain that a theory is repeatable, testable and confirmable by other scientists to confirm the experiments causation for them to build from the research and conclude the analysis. The criteria for the scientific methods are broken down into basic principles: Consistent (internally & externally), Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities, explanations), Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena), Empirically Testable and Falsifiable Based upon Controlled variables , Repeated Experiments are Correctable and Dynamic (changes are made with new data), Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more), and Tentative (admits that it might not be correct, does not assert certainty) (Brown, personal communication. September 5, 2017).  Pseudoscience is usually detectable if first the tested work fails to satisfy any of these principles. .

Karl Popper in “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” creates the theory of falsifiability to try to distinguish between science, pseudoscience, and metaphysics. His theory of falsifiability states that there must be “a possibility of refuting the theory”iii in order for a theory to be falsifiable. Another way of stating this is that an experiment must be designed (but not necessarily implemented) so that the theory is tested as whether it is true or not. Popper argues that every time a scientific theory is tested, it is an attempt to be proven false. He also argues that a “‘good’ scientific theory”iv forbids many things from happening, which is an indicator of falsifiability.

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

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.

Before this assignment I had no understanding of what defines science as science and how to pinpoint what is true science and what is fake science, otherwise known as pseudoscience. According to Jeffrey Lee who published Science and Pseudoscience, pseudoscience is considered a fake science. It is a collection of assertions that do not satisfy the requirements to practice true science. The difference being science relies solely on careful observations and experiments to either confirm or reject a hypothesis. It has to require reproducible results, personal stories or testimonies are prohibited. As well as arguments are based on logical and/ or mathematical reasoning. Lastly, there is progress; more and more things are learned and developed over time. Whereas, Pseudoscience is nothing but the complete opposite of what science represents. It is based off a hypothesis where the evidence is looked only to support the original hypothesis with little to no experimentation. Researches focus without skepticism and rely on personal stories and testimonies to back their belief. After a conclusion is made there is no further progress; nothing new is learned as time passes. These two very different methods can be the fine line between what is science and what is pseudoscience. According to Rodney Schmaltz and Scott O. Lilienfeld who published The 7 Ways to Identify Pseudoscience A person can identify what a pseudoscience is by acknowledging that others will use

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

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