Science coming from the Latin word Scientia, meaning “knowledge,” is a systematic structure that builds and organizes knowledge from testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The nature of scientific progress and the rationality of scientific change lies between Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. The two prominent philosophers of the 20th century had very distinct viewpoints of science which led to countless debates. One of them, which I believe to be the most intriguing, was the scientific method and the idea of there even being one. The traditional understanding of the scientific method, described since the ancient Greeks, was to look at the world with a scientific eye and observe it with no other preconceived notions. They both,
…show more content…
He believes that science begins with problems and that these problems occur when something differs from our expectations and reality of it. When this happens, Popper believes we must jump to a solution or conjecture that tries to explain the new criteria. The conjecture will offer a hypothesis that, for example, might try to explain the world in a new way. Popper believes that a good conjecture will make bold moves and take risks by making novel predictions. It is then the job of the scientist to take this new solution and test and submit them through criticism which Popper describes as refutation. He believes science to be a continuous notion of problems that leads to tentative solutions that are then followed by attempted …show more content…
Popper’s believed that the most important aspect of the scientific method to be, “ [To] do everything they can in order to criticize and test the theory in question....” and while Kuhn believed that criticism is exceptional, much of science more focused on his idea of “normal science”. Kuhn understood the the slow and tedious part of science and that mistakes are sometime inevitable. Not every astonishing outcome is because of what was being tested but instead may involve who is testing it which is a critical part of
He believes that science begins with problems and that these problems occur when something differs from our expectations and reality of it. When this happens, Popper believes we must jump to a solution or conjecture that tries to explain the new criteria. The conjecture will offer a hypothesis that, for example, might try to explain the world in a new way. Popper believes that a good conjecture will make bold moves and take risks by making novel predictions. It is then the job of the scientist to take this new solution and test and submit them through criticism which Popper describes as refutation. He believes science to be a continuous notion of problems that leads to tentative solutions that are then followed by attempted …show more content…
Popper’s believed that the most important aspect of the scientific method to be, “ [To] do everything they can in order to criticize and test the theory in question....” and while Kuhn believed that criticism is exceptional, much of science more focused on his idea of “normal science”. Kuhn understood the the slow and tedious part of science and that mistakes are sometime inevitable. Not every astonishing outcome is because of what was being tested but instead may involve who is testing it which is a critical part of