Examples Of Corrobortion

Decent Essays
Karl Popper believed that a theory could not be confirmed by the empirical method but it could be corroborated. Corroboration was used by Popper for something that a scientific theory acquires when it survives attempts to refute it. Peter Godfrey Smith gives an analogy of how corroboration can be understood with the example of the academic transcript and a letter of recommendation. The transcript is like corroboration because it says what the student has done and measure your past performance but it does not say about what you will do in the future. Popper believed that no good reasons could be given for believing that past results is reliable for the future. The letter of recommendation is like confirmation because it says something about …show more content…
He also was aware of that there was some sort of confirmation bias. Which we are subject to fixate on and emphasize data that confirms one’s prior beliefs while ignoring or dismissing counter-evidence. Also the more easily a theory can be confirmed, the more trivial and less scientific the theory is. An example he uses is Freudanism. When a parent strikes the child in anger confirms the Freudian’s belief in an id, while the parent who refrains from striking in anger instead confirms the Freudian’s belief in a counter-acting super-ego. The Freudian sees confirmation everywhere but this isn 't reason to think observation supports the theory. Instead, it’s reason to think the theory rules out nothing. More examples of not good scientific theories are astrology and Marxism because they rule out nothing or very little. 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. There are some objections and criticism of this view that Karl Popper has of corroboration. Popper appears to rely more on method than on the pure logic of something. An example is that falsificationism cannot recognize nontrivial probability attributions as scientific. For instance if the event of something has a probability of .001 then this event would have no falsifier. Another example would be if you have a coin that if fair, then the probability of heads 100 times in a row is extremely low. This is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    2. How does Kuhn 's view differ from Popper 's view of science? Kuhn 's view differs from Popper 's view of science in the way of scientific method. Popper sets a very high standard for scientific method by the principle of demarcation and criticism. According to Popper, any theory can be proven false through empirical evidence or experimental data but cannot be proven true.…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Secondly, Karl Popper thinks that if science had followed an induction path, it would not have made such progress. An example case would be described when a scientist arrives at a generalization. If she/ he follows the induction method, he or she will go in search of instances which establish it as truth. If he/ she finds an instance which conflicts with her/ his generalization and establishment, then the scientist is required to qualify the generalization mentioning that the generalization is really true except, in the cases where it has been held to be false or rather unsupported. The type of such qualifications imposes heavy limitations and curtailment restrictions on the scope of the generalization.…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Induction Methodology

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Hume (n.d.) believed that this method did not provide clear and consistence approach to solve any scientific phenomena (as cited in Schick, 2000). Also, Schick (2000) said that Popper believed in the logical deduction methodology in testing the hypothesis; hence the induction has no role in scientific theory. Popper (1959) rejected the notion of the universal statement to be the bases for empirical sciences (as cited in Schick, 2000). It seems that the induction methodology has weak justifications to its perception regarding science and pseudoscience. However, logical reasoning in deduction methodology provides a better and strong approach to develop scientific theory.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Moore is correct in describing our intuitions as the smarter bet, but because he tries to demonstrate his argument deductively, his "proof" is invalid. Just like Kant, I can only believe the external world to exists on faith, and nothing more. Although I have reason to believe the premise that an external world exists, I cannot prove the premise. Therefore, I cannot construct a conclusion based on such a premise. However this goes the same for philosophical skeptics who cannot prove that the external world does not exist.…

    • 850 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved 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
  • Superior Essays

    Karl Popper Falsification

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Karl Popper, as part of his career long attempt to support empiricism in science, proposed a doctrine of falsification. This directly contrasts verification, a central theme to logical positivism. A claim is empirically verifiable if observation and experimentation produce statements which logically imply the truth of the claim. Popper rejected the logical empiricists' ideas given that “verificationism” does not allow for claims within a universal scope to be subject to verification.1 This is because there are so many permutations of approaches to verifying something claimed by science. Opposite to this, a universal claim can be falsified by a single negative instance.1 For example, by observing one red minivan, the claim "all minivans are…

    • 1527 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    While Popper championed skepticism in scientific theories, there are problems with his theory that led to the rise of other ideas. FALSIFICATION Karl Popper was a philosopher of science who developed the idea of falsification. In An Introduction to Science…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires. Without criticizing and discussing beliefs James’s idea of maximizing true beliefs is not accomplished. William James was a radical empiricist (James, Preface). He says “‘radical’ because it treats the doctrine of monism itself as a hypothesis, and, unlike so much of the half-way empiricism that is current” (James, Preface). James believed that there are multiple true experiences of a singular reality.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    But in fact, this is may not be the truth. Sure science leans towards this answer, but it will never be known. This knowledge shapes one’s conclusion to believing there is no God when it may, in fact, be the complete opposite. So our concepts may lead to an uncertain conclusion. Our concepts do however shape our conclusions in the form of actions.…

    • 1376 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I will argue that induction cannot be a basis for justified true beliefs (Knowledge - certainty) as we haven 't come around any way for its justification. Moreover we will see how we can possibly justify the use of the scientific method using Popper’s Fallibilist approach. Induction can be defined as a basic belief that is justified by inductive inference. In other words, we accept a belief as being true only because it has proven to be true in the past even though we have no certain means to show it will be true in the future. Let us consider how induction is…

    • 2178 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics