Karl Popper Criticism Of Falsificationism
Karl Popper asserts that the scientific status of a theory is derived from that theories potential for refutation. Theories outlining experimental results that (if observed) could refute the theory are classified as scientific. Theories that lack this content are classified as pseudoscience.
Popper uses this distinction to preface his scientific view: falsificationism. Under this view, science exists as a system through which we can logically falsify theories. This stands as the central role of science.
In this Essay, I will describe Popper’s Falsificationism and its relation to induction. I will then contrast falsificationism with confirmationism. Proceeding this I will address some strengths and criticisms of Popper’s method. …show more content…
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 …show more content…
Scientists form a conjecture that if true would explain observed phenomena. The theory should be bold, and the predictions it makes should be clearly falsifiable.
2. The theory should then be subject to harsh testing in an attempt to prove the theory false.
3. If the theory’s predictions were false. Scientists should push the refutation through, and declare the theory false. If the theories predictions were true. Scientists should not accept the theory as true, instead, scientists should assert only that they failed to refute the theory.
Why does Popper deny the use of inductive logic? In Science: Conjectures and Refutations Popper refers to “the problem of induction” promoted by David Hume. The problem is as follows: Proposition 1: Every Morning for the past 3,000 years the sun has risen. Conclusion: Therefore, tomorrow morning the sun will rise.
The conclusion drawn in this problem is reached through an inductive inference that the future will resemble the past. Hume argues that we cannot know that the future will resemble the past. Consequently, we cannot use inductive logic to reach