How Does Kuhn 's View Differ From Popper 's Views 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. In this view, any theory is always in the state of being not yet disproved. However, Kuhn thinks that in normal science the theory is not questioned until “the crisis stage” in the Kuhn Cycle. Kuhn claims that scientists does not try to refute their theories instead they try to prove them and seek evidence for their theories whereas Popper claims that scientists try to refute their theories.
The second thing is that Popper 's principle of demarcation only happens once there is a crisis and a revolution is underway. However, this does not mean that Kuhn rejects completely the falsification principle. Because both philisophers agree that one time falsification is not enough to cause scientists/people to stop believing in a science or a theory. Lastly, I would like to express my opinion based on my reading about critisim of Popper and puzzle-solver science of Kuhn, what Kuhn 's and Popper 's contribution looks more complemantary than contradictory even though Kuhn 's view differs from Popper 's view in many ways. However, this is a subject for a long essay not for short essay.
3. Discuss one strength or…