Question

Briefly review the ideas of Karl Popper with respect to progress in scientific research.

Answer 1

Ans: Karl Popper was a philosopher and pioneers of falsification means he had the inherent ability to prove that a statement , hypothesis or theory is false.An advocate of falsification .He did not believe that what makes Science special is the facts!Popper's principle concern is the problem of demarcation: mean How do we distinguish between genuine science and non -science. Popper agrees with the Hume that induction is hopeless but science is not based on induction. He said that science as falsification .

Demarcation problem -

- Standard answer :by inductive, empirical method

-how to distinguish this from pseudo-empirical method- appealing to observation and experiment, but not meeting scientific standard ?

Examples to distinguish :

-Einstein's theory of relativity

-Marx's theory of history

-Adler's individual psychology

Exactness and measurability didn't seem to capture the difference

all had large explanatory power

World seemed full of verifications and confirmation. Whatever happened always confirmed it. thus the truth appeared manifest and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to seethe manifest truth ,who refused to see it ,either because it was against their class interest or because of repression which were still un analysed and crying aloud of treatment.

* the problem with confirming Evidences :

- incessant stream of confirmation , adherents of each theory could point to endless evidence - from the news , clinical practice etc-consistent with their theory

-Anecdote about Alder ,who interpreted a case that on its face seemed inconsistent with his theories ,without meeting the patient ."Slightly shocked ,I asked him how could be so sure .Because of my thousandfold experience, he replied ;whereupon I could not help saying And with this new case I suppose our experience has become thousand and one fold.

* risky prediction -

-contrast with Einstein's theory

- predicted a specific observation -if observation absent, theory would be wrong

-Theory could not accommodate every possible observation - which made confirmation meaningful.

*Falsifiability -

- Confirmation easy to find if sought .

- Should count only if result from risky prediction ,theory must be preclude something

- Non refutable theory is not scientific. Scientific theories are tested by attempting to falsify them .

* conjectures and Refutation-

-"criticism of my alleged views was widespread and highly successful. I have yet to meet a criticism of my views. Meanwhile ,testability is being widely accepted as a criterion of demarcation."

- Issue of whether it is appropriate to generalize from repeated empirical observations.

*observation of theory-

-Widely held as method of science.

_absurd to attempt to observe without purpose or expectation.

- At the most basic level ,there are inborn expectations of finding regularities.