Essay Comparing Carnap And Popper's Theory

Decent Essays
What is a Theory from Carnap and Popper

Rudolf Carnap and Karl Popper both are philosophers whom tried to question what is a theory. Both of these men look at the same question from different perspectives. How can one decide if a theory is scientific or not. Carnap and Popper both came up with different ways to choose which theories are more important when compared to others. It is definitely possible to agree with both Carnap and Popper’s ways of demarcation as a theory can be both verifiable and falsifiable.

Carnap senses that only experience can tell us the knowledge imbedded in the world of phenomena (as described by Kant). In order to access the truth of this world, Carnap came up with a criteria of theory choice and demarcation which is required to evaluate competing scientific theories and deduct the ones that are better or worse. Here, Carnap introduced verificationism, to see if a principle is scientific or not. A theory is scientific if it is
…show more content…
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. On top of that. Popper says a theory can also be falsified. Therefore, Carnap stops at the point where if anything is unscientific, it is meaningless while Popper is able point out that if something that is scientific, it can be

Related Documents

  • Decent 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…

    • 1135 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Philosophers continue to revisit these ideas, supporting their initial claims and making counter arguments to rebuttals. While realism supports the idea that science is based on facts and the truth, using scientific theories to accurately depict the world, anti-realism claims that the purpose of science is to find theories that are empirically correct due to one’s own observations of the physical world. Ultimately, the debate of realism and anti-realism concern the aim of science, trying to discover why scientists perform certain actions opposed to others as a result of their individual beliefs. It comprises of the nature of scientific knowledge, how we can attain and are limited by it, and the overall interpretation of the scientific enterprise. Inconsistencies can be highlighted in both arguments, however, both embrace a certain truth if observed through an unbiased perspective.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The adherents of a pseudo-science are able to firmly attach the hypotheses no matter how the events unfolded. However, Popper accepted that unrestricted generalizations could not be verified. Instead, he pointed out they can only be falsified. I agreed with the account of Popper’s philosophy of science from the view that falsification is the ultimate way of understanding the various ways of scientific methods and approaches. This is simply because a universal explanatory theory is only true if it can be justified in various empirical reasons that are well outlined, and thus, achieved by assuming the truth and credibility of particular test statements or observational judgment.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Examples Of Corrobortion

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Karl Popper is listed as an inductive skeptic because of this. But his answer to all of this would be falsificationism. Falsificationism is when a hypothesis is scientific if and only if it has the potential to be refuted by some possible observation. Also that a hypothesis is bold to the extent that it risks falsification and we do make scientific progress, but not by confirming the hypotheses. Then we aggressively attempt to refute our hypotheses and we learn as time goes on, what is really false.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    INTORDUCTION Karl Popper was a philosopher who introduced the idea of conjecture and refutation as a method for conducting scientific inquiry. In the first section I explore Poppers idea of falsification. Popper’s scientific Progression deals with his method of scientific progress while fallacies in Popper’s Perceptions deals with the problems that arise from his theory. Finally I evaluate Popper’s legacy, many scientist still hold Popper’s idea in high esteem even after other ideas emerged. While Popper championed skepticism in scientific theories, there are problems with his theory that led to the rise of other ideas.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Jogalekar first states that Berezow's defining qualities for what makes something scientific are reasonable, yet incomplete and narrow. He believes Berezow's criteria should be used more "like a ruler for psychology to examine its own gaps and goals" (Jogalekar 2013). His defense for psychology begins early on by confronting first against what he states is Berezow's largest argument against psychology; lack of adequate definitions and…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kuhn states that the two ideas answer the charges as they relate to relativism and irrationality. Kuhn agrees that the charges of relativism may be right as applied to culture and development, however, in science, it is not. He states that his ideas of incommensurability could be explained further allowing for translations in between the different worldviews (202-203). Kuhn states that the other philosophers presents what could be referred to as “serious misconstruing” of his original theory as he adjusts it to allow for translators that facilitate transitions of paradigm (198). The translators understand the different in language, hence can explain the different worldviews with opposing paradigms, into a new language having all the anomalies and responses.…

    • 776 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Positivism is said to evaluate the use of critical realism using their own criteria instead of the core theory. They argue that critical realism fails to test knowledge claims about causes effectively, however this is based on the positivist theory that scientific knowledge requires evaluation to be…

    • 814 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Bas Van Faassen Analysis

    • 721 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Van Fraassen mentions numerous times that it is very possible that a given theory or set of theories may very well be false. He offers an alternative proposition, stating “we are always willing to believe that the theory which best explains the evidence, is empirically adequate.”1 Here he is basically using a traditionally realist idea to justify an anti-realist claim, that being the notion that a theory that is superior in its explanatory nature is empirically adequate. The importance of empirical adequacy is a pivotal factor in differentiating Van Fraassen’s beliefs and realism. A theory is empirically adequate when everything it asserts about the observable world is true. The requirements of empirical adequacy are less demanding and more warranted than those of absolute truth, because it requires theories to make true assertions only about the observable aspects of the…

    • 721 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays