Carnap's And Popper: Theoretical Analysis

Improved Essays
One’s willingness to agree both with Carnap and Popper on the question of demarcation depends on how strict one chooses to be in accepting one criterion over the other. There exists middle ground, or grey area, between the two criteria that makes it possible to accept both. In principle, it is possible to agree both with Carnap’s and Popper’s theory of demarcation, as Carnap’s verificationism principle includes being able to falsify a theory, which agrees with Popper’s falsification criteria. However, if one chooses to accept that a theory is only scientific if it can be falsified and that it must require empirical content, then Popper’s criteria can no longer agree with Carnap’s. In addition, each criteria of demarcation encourages a different …show more content…
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    During this essay ‘falsifiable’ , ‘verifiable’ and ‘theoretical approach’ shall be defined in relation to psychology, with a different range of psychological methods of investigations such as experimental, observational, correlational, clinical and survey methods. Falsifiable means that it can be shown to be Incorrect, this means that you can't rely on the result from the experiment or even a statement.. Verifiable means you that it can be shown as correct, with a positive result. Verifiable Is to prove the truth of something through an observation or investigation, for an example a birth certificate is proved verifiable, and evidence can back this up.…

    • 785 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Bermuda Triangle: Pseudoscience? Coined by philosopher, Karl Popper, ‘Pseudoscience’ is a term that is prevelant and used to describe theories or even fields of study that appear scientific but are not authentically so. Much like scientific claims or theories, pseudoscientific ideas also stem from curiosity of the humankind. They tend to use seemingly scientific jargon to rationalize concepts but are often scarcely refutable and are devoid of experimentation and evidence. This essay aims to bring out the flaws in pseudoscientific claims through the example of the Bermuda Triangle and demonstrate how and why this concept is not scientific. For many years together, the mysterious disappearance of ships, planes and even two nuclear submarines in and over the region popularly called the Bermuda Triangle (or the Devil’s Triangle) has fiddled with human curiosity and compelled our race to make repeated attempts at unravelling this mystery.…

    • 823 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is very difficult to determine what is science, and what is not science. Many scientific claims fall short, and are considered non-science or pseudoscience. He states, “science looks for unbroken, blind, natural regularities (laws). Things in the world do not happen in just any old way. They follow set paths, and science tries to capture this fact.”…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Never have humans had such abundance of information, easily accessible at the touch of a finger. Philosophers, doctors and scientists throughout history have labored their entire lives to study the science of earth, space and life on our planet. Now, with the amazing technological advances we’ve experienced in the last several decades, so many monumental discoveries have shed light on these fields, answering many questions and creating many more. The question now facing many of us in our quest for knowledge is what information is credible. What makes for “good science”?…

    • 523 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The chapter “Thinking Scientifically,” from Natalie Angier's book, The Canon, analyzes the advantages of the application of scientific processes in daily life. This is first done through a description of science as a dynamic state of mind, rather than a list of facts to be memorized and regurgitated. In what amounts to a minor attack on the way science is regularly taught, Angier quotes David Stevenson, saying “Many teachers who don't have a deep appreciation of science present it as a set of facts... What's often missing is the idea of critical thinking, how you assess which ideas are reasonable and which are not,” (Angier, 19). This—the mode through which science is taught, and the subsequent ways which students believe it can or cannot be…

    • 1821 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Crystal Kim Professor Dan Lainer-Vos SOCI 210 / Fall 2015 10 October 2015 Midterm Assignment A) Concept Definition: Explain four of the following concepts (no more than one paragraph for each concept) (5 points each: 20 pts). Be sure to explain the concepts with reference to the relevant writers. 1. Falsification: Carl Popper is an empiricist and perfectionist, whose whole notion revolves on the principle of falsification, and which he defines as the “criteria of demarcation”.…

    • 473 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    Popper’s model had several defects .one of them that according to his mono-criterion that he adopted to be declared some areas that were thought to be science as non-science. Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science (Hansson 2006) and for giving some pseudo-science the status of being scientific (Mahner,…

    • 1031 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Lauden suggested that the demarcation criterion results in a set of ambiguities surrounding the scientific status of almost all statements, while every improbable statement with certain degrees of falsifibility can win assent from the falsificationism demarcation criterion. Even the flat earth theory can be demarcated as scientific in the light of empirical observations. Critics may argue that the degree of testability is what differentiates science and non-science rather than the absolute ability to be verified. Apart from the fact that there is no such comparison between two claims as scientific statements should not entail any pseudoscientific claim, testability does not entail worthiness of the claim.…

    • 1587 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    “People who do not understand themselves have a craving for understanding” (Wilhelm Stekel). The human mind is highly complex and very difficult to study since thought processes and feelings cannot be seen. The term psychology is composed of two Greek words: Psyche, which means spirit or soul, and Logia, which translates to the study of something. So what is Psychology?…

    • 1555 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Carnap has his views on verificationism where a new theory would explain the world better than its previous one, and a theory is only scientific if it can be tested in principle. Popper tags his theories with falsificationism (we can not fully verify something, can only accept it until better evidence is available). Therefore, a theory is an explanation of the world that can be based on older theories, and the theory itself can be the origin of future and better theories. But, the difference between Carnap and Popper is that Popper adds an extra level of falsification to Carnap’s criteria of demarcation. Carnap said that a theory can only be scientific or unscientific due to its ability to be verified.…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience is one of the Gordian knot problems in the field of philosophy of science. Several proposals have been made in this regard. Karl Popper proposes a ‘falsification principle’ that aims to test the scientific status of a theory. Kuhn has brought forward a claim against this principle that it is only applicable to occasional revolutionary parts rather than the most part of science. However, another attempt has been made by Lakatos in which a progressive research program draws the distinction between science and pseudoscience.…

    • 1504 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For example, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does not match the results, we use deductive logic to declare the theory false. However, when a theory is evaluated, and the prediction does match the results, we would typically use inductive logic to affirm the theories truth. However, Popper claims that science can only falsify theories, theories that make correct predictions can never be affirmed. Instead, scientists must assert (when met with correct predictions) that they failed to refute the theory. Popper insists then that the proper scientific method is as…

    • 820 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In this essay I will give an account of Thomas Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis. I begin by clarifying what Kuhn meant by a paradigm and then proceed to give a clarification of two interpretations of Kuhn’s thesis of incommensurability that will be addressed separately in this essay. I then provide an objection to the first interpretation of the incommensurability thesis, which I believe it fails to overcome. I proceed to describe Kuhn’s understanding of the incommensurability of meaning of paradigm dependent terms. I address an objection to this view as raised by Donald Davidson regarding shared agreement and argue that this poses a problem for Kuhn’s earlier incommensurability thesis and include some concerns regarding Kuhn’s use of the…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Discuss one strength or limitation of Popper 's view of science and how it progresses and one strength or limitation of Kuhn 's…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Paradigms “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” introduced Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm theory. Paradigms describe the scientific observations of a natural phenomenon or theory (Kuhn 2012, 41). Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” provides a philosophical look into the scientific process and an understanding of how theories change and progress over time. Paradigms help explain theories, concepts, and observations so they can be learned from (Kuhn 2012, 43).…

    • 1582 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays