The Principles Of Empirical Science

The development of the scientific method in the late 1500’s to the early 1600’s was a crucial stepping-stone in the science community. The scientific method is based upon observations, hypotheses and experimentation. The concept is rather simple, and can be applied to many areas of study. Once an observation is made, the observer can make a hypothesis as to why that phenomenon occurs and can then design an experiment to prove whether or not that hypotheses is valid. Although the scientific method has been extremely useful in the discovery of various things from usages of medications to studying animal behavior, there are still those who question the usage of this tool. These critics claim that since

Empirical knowledge is integral in developing or explaining theories of science. A scientific theory, in the first place, relies on a body of factual information

-The Environmental Working Group runs this website which consists on board members and many others conducting the experiments. The credentials of the organization running the site make the information presented reliable. This is because most or all of the board members are experts and also the information is very reliable with several different resources the back the evidence found.

Empirical ways of knowing refer to what types of knowledge which should be informed to oneself (Johns & Freshwater 1998, p. 4). In this situation, I needed four types of knowledge: the effectiveness of warming intravenous fluids to prevent decreasing temperature during caesarean operations under lumbar anaesthesia, the risks of adverse impacts of low temperature in the operation, the mental condition of patients in operating rooms and the appropriate ways of communication with colleagues.

Empirical or predictive validity is the extent to which scores on one assessment correspond to the same behaviors measured with other assessment instruments. For an assessment to be empirically valid, statistical evidence must suggest the instrument measures what it is meant to measure (Trochim, 2006). The BDI-FastScreen was correlated with two other assessment instruments that measure symptoms of depression and with the diagnostic criteria for depression in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR (DSM-IV-TR). The correlations were r = .62 with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and r = .86, when correlated with the Beck Anxiety Inventory for Primary Care. Correlation with the DSM-IV-TR was

Ruse states that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must have five characteristic features. These five features include: natural law must guide the theory, it must make explanatory reference to natural law, it must be

And so according to Carnap the way that science works is by first making single observations of particular things at a specific time and place, he refers to those single observations as facts. The facts are then induced to scientific laws. Carnap goes one step further and divides science laws into two categories that is the empirical laws, which are about properties that can be observed, and theoretical laws which deal with non- observable things. Such that facts are used to confirm empirical laws, then the empirical laws are used to support the theoretical

Demarcation is a philosophical problem with far reaching implications in our daily lives, both theoretically and practically. The issue of demarcation stems from the idea of how to distinguish science from pseudoscience and attempts to establish a set of criterion from which individuals can determine the empirical nature of a certain theory. Philosophical musings regarding demarcations have been around for the past hundreds of years. For the philosophers that we read, this time was during the era when Marx, Freud, Adler and Einstein were all proposing or had recently proposed their respective theories. Philosophers such as Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos all sought to determine the scientific nature of Freudian’s Id and Ego as well as Marx’s political beliefs. Popper, the earliest of the philosophers we read regarding the issue of demarcation proposed that a certain theory can only be deemed science if that theory had the ability to be proven false. Kuhn, on the other hand, attempted to define the problem of demarcation as that which solves puzzles rather than testing theories. Finally, Lakatos notes that a theory can be proven scientific if and only if it has the ability to prove an unusual future event. While all these philosophers indeed have powerful arguments, I found those to be proposed by Popper and Lakatos the most intriguing. My view on demarcation closely parallels that of Lakatos, however I do understand Popper’s position but notice pitfalls in his argument. The problem

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

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.

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.

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