Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Philosophy of Science Essay -- Informative, Scientific Method
Background In the modern technological and highly specialized world scientists are seldom aware of the work of philosophers; it is practically unparalleled to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to swear to the great practical beneficial influence which that philosophical work has had upon their own (1). In his paper he started by the following Ã¢â¬Å"The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, 'When is a theory true?' nor, 'When is a theory acceptable?' My problem was different I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truthÃ¢â¬ (2) Karl considers the empirical method of observations ensued by test or series of tests to approve a theory, and analysis of the results (empirical method) is not acceptable. As an alternative he recommended the following Ã¢â¬Å"I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirical method--that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experimentÃ¢â¬ (2) He established that the main problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e., (distinguishing between science and what he terms 'non-science). Karl popper summarized his ideas in seven points as followed: 1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verification, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations. 2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions 3. Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. 4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non scientific. 5. Every g... ...ns no observation is free from the possibility of error. 6- Karl popper considered that scientific logic is deductive logic. so all scientific theories are tested by trying to falsify them. In order to do this, scientists deduce predictions from theories and if the predictions prove to be false, then deductive logic dictates that the theory is false. If the predictions prove to be true, then the theory is not proven true, simply this means that is corroboration to this theory. 7-last one (conventionalist twist) or aÃ¢â¬â¢ conventionalist stratagem'.)these words created to explain the trying some admirers of some theories to rescue the theory from refutation tried to save their theory, By introducing some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory in this way that it escapes refutation, but they destroyed or at least lowered, its scientific status (2).