Kuhn And Popper's View Of Science

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. 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
…show more content…
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 limitation of Popper 's view of science and how it progresses and one strength or limitation of Kuhn 's
…show more content…
The reason for why I would not choose Popper 's view is his standing against an empiricist view of science along with his falsification principle. It does not take into account observational and descriptive science such as social science, medicine and psychology. Even though Kuhn 's view is also not compatible with empricism-actually logical empricism, his paradigm-driven science view is much compelling to me. I find more compelling it for two reasons. First reason is Kuhn 's role of history in science and paradigm. According to him, without taking into account of the role of history in science, there will not be an accurate picture of science. Without the role of history, we should think that all the great philosophers suchs Aristotle and Plato did not know anything compared to modern scientists. For example, there are four basic elements according to Aristotle. Now we know that that is not true. However it does not mean that Aristotle is not good at pyhisics. Within in the paradigm of that time, he was great pysician and philospher. The second reson is “paradigm shift”. Paradigm shift is better in the explanation of how a science progress. Especially when we consider the transition from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein ' quantum physics or the transition from the Ptolemaic model to the heliocentric model, it fits

Related Documents