Philosopher Karl Popper suggested that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory true using induction, since it is hard to find evidence that will assure us that contrary evidence will not be traced. To argue this, Karl Popper suggested that proper science is accomplished by a method he referred to as deduction.
Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations. Under this process, Popper proposed a method or rather a methodology referred to as the hypothetic - deductive …show more content…
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. This eventually leads to scientific theories becoming extremely insufficient in their range of …show more content…
This concept is clearly brought as importance in Karl Popper 's philosophy of science. The distinctive features of any scientific theory is that its hypotheses can be put to a test.
The basic uniqueness of a good scientific theory is that its hypotheses pass the test. The difference pertains to pseudo-science. The adherents of a pseudo-science are able to firmly attach the hypotheses no matter how the events unfolded. However, Popper accepted that unrestricted generalizations could not be verified. Instead, he pointed out they can only be falsified.
I agreed with the account of Popper’s philosophy of science from the view that falsification is the ultimate way of understanding the various ways of scientific methods and approaches. This is simply because a universal explanatory theory is only true if it can be justified in various empirical reasons that are well outlined, and thus, achieved by assuming the truth and credibility of particular test statements or observational judgment. By coming up with a simple well-structured experiment so as to clearly prove an explanatory theory, will largely bring out a significant induction, however, this must be a widely agreed i.e. universal theory so as to bring some uniformity in
Deduction involves the process of falsification. Falsification is a particular specialized aspect of hypothesis testing. The falsification process generally involves the process of stating some output from a particular theory form and then researching using conflicting or incompatible cases using experiments or observations. Under this process, Popper proposed a method or rather a methodology referred to as the hypothetic - deductive …show more content…
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. This eventually leads to scientific theories becoming extremely insufficient in their range of …show more content…
This concept is clearly brought as importance in Karl Popper 's philosophy of science. The distinctive features of any scientific theory is that its hypotheses can be put to a test.
The basic uniqueness of a good scientific theory is that its hypotheses pass the test. The difference pertains to pseudo-science. The adherents of a pseudo-science are able to firmly attach the hypotheses no matter how the events unfolded. However, Popper accepted that unrestricted generalizations could not be verified. Instead, he pointed out they can only be falsified.
I agreed with the account of Popper’s philosophy of science from the view that falsification is the ultimate way of understanding the various ways of scientific methods and approaches. This is simply because a universal explanatory theory is only true if it can be justified in various empirical reasons that are well outlined, and thus, achieved by assuming the truth and credibility of particular test statements or observational judgment. By coming up with a simple well-structured experiment so as to clearly prove an explanatory theory, will largely bring out a significant induction, however, this must be a widely agreed i.e. universal theory so as to bring some uniformity in