This principle states that a theory is scientific if there are ways for one to test it through observations or experiments that would either support or contradict the theory. The last notion, a theory’s ability to be contradicted by results is what allows one to accept both Carnap’s and Popper’s demarcation criteria. Similarly to Popper’s criteria of demarcation, one can essentially seek ways to disprove a scientific theory if he chooses to do so. This is an instance in which one’s stance of the demarcation is flexible and is able to accept some part of either criterion. To illustrate this concept, an example from the history of astronomy can be utilized. The geocentric model of the universe states that the Earth is the center of the universe and all planets revolve around. This was the dominant theory that held from the times of Ancient civilizations up until the 1500s, when the Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus championed an opposing theory. He stated that the solar system followed the heliocentric model, in which the sun was the center. In this example, the geocentric model is indeed a scientific theory because Copernicus, along with Kepler and Newton, was able to disprove it or falsify it. …show more content…
While a logical positivist who agrees only with Carnap’s criteria would say a scientific theory can be both be verifiable and falsifiable. The key difference here is that Carnap states that a good scientific theory is the one that has the most evidence to support it. Popper or a follower of his would disagree by arguing that a good scientific theory is the one that can be falsified by results or observations but has yet to be contradicted. Returning to the previous example of early astronomy, what makes the heliocentric model a scientific theory in this case is its ability to be supported by observations or calculations. Kepler used Brahe’s observational data of the solar system to support Copernicus’s claims and this was later confirmed by Newton. It does not follow Popper’s criteria because the three astronomers were out to find evidence to support the theory and not out to find contradictory evidence, illustrating the instance where the two criteria do not agree with each other. In addition, Popper’s empirical content requirement and his disagreement with Carnap the infallibilism of singular propositions are two main areas in which one can argue in support of one theory over the other if one theory is to be chosen strictly over the other. It can be argued that Carnap does not explicitly say that a theory must contain empirical