Essay Comparing Carnap And Popper's Theory
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