Thursday, May 30, 2019
Popper and Kuhn: Two Views of Science Essay example -- Science Scienti
Popper and Kuhn Two Views of ScienceIn this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions What is Karl Poppers view of light? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are Science Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper and Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? by Thomas Kuhn. 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 task 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 says that he and Popper often agree as to what constitutes science and non-science. He claims that he differs with Popper in the methods that he uses to arrive at his conclusions. Kuhn says that if a line of demarcation is to be sought between science and non-science, we shoul dnt look for a frosty or decisive one, because science is not objective, as Popper would have us believe, but subjective.Popper claims that the common answer to the problem of delineating between science and pseudo-science is that science uses an observational method, deriving from observations and experiments. This explanation does not satisfy Popper. He has a gut feeling that areas of study like astrology are not science, and he attempts to coiffe up with a theory to prove it. One of the problems I have with Popper is that instead of looking at a concrete problem and trying to issue forth up with an explanation, Popper first made up his mind that astrology is not science, and then set out to prove it. By Poppers own admissions, indirect evidence is everywhere, but means little. This could be applied all of Poppers examples.Popper is dissatisfied with the Marxist theory of history, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology. He sets out to describe wherefore his gut tells him that these are unscientific theories. He argues against theories that have explanatory power. Popper has a problem with Marxists because no matter what happens in the world, they can explain the event in light of their theory. When a person believes a theory to be true, everything that happens is a verification of the truthfulness of the theory. Poppers example is how a Marxists cant... ...ctly what it was besides an soul that it was different from more traditional sciences like chemistry or physics. Why was he so determined to separate empirical science from pseudo-science? If I could smatter to Popper, I would ask him, why bother trying to draw a line at all? It would be more fruitful to try and take away between what is or isnt true and what is or isnt significant.I have a tendency to lean towards Kuhn over Popper. It dont mean that Poppers ideal of proper science is useful, and he seems to agree with me (neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability.) Kuhn looks at how the world really works, a far more significant area of study. Popper thinks that he has all of the answers. I distrust people who think that they know everything. I agree with Socrates, who said something like, The only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing. Kuhn doesnt make rules about how science should be done, he makes suggestions. Popper wants to draw a line down the middle between science and non-science. The more I look at the problem, the more it becomes obvious that the line is not sharp, if it can be drawn at all.
Posted by w at 1:42 AM