|
Philosophy of Science
So I'm in a dilemma right now. My philosophy exam is tomorrow, and I just discovered I need to know Karl Popper's philosophy and approach to science. And I read over my notes and don't understand a word of it. On the internet, it's all put in very complex terms which I find very hard to understand. Does anyone know anything about Karl Popper's philosophy of science? I especially need to know about falsification.
Any help will be muchly appreciated it. Thanks everyone.
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Work & School category?
Maybe give some free advice about: School?
it's been a while but from what i remember, falsification and karl popper's approach to science had something to do with the concept of proof or rather proof of oposition to the fact in order to validate truthfullness. the thought that, without, any argument, to the contrary, a statement has no scientific bearing holding it separate from pure make believe.
ugh, sounds like smarty-talk to me, so that's all i got right now.
hope you do well.
]
I only studied Popper and falsification very briefly (and unfortunately not in the context of Philosophy of Science), and I'm also not sure what level you are at, so I'm not sure if any of this is relevant to your level of study, but here's some material.
Popper argues that a sentence is not scientific (and possibly actually meaningless - literally without any meaning at all) if it does not admit the possibility of being false. This might seem a strange idea, but examples illustrate it. This wikipedia entry ([Link](Mouse over link to see full location)) gives a good example of a pyschoanalyst who believes that his patient is a homosexual in denial. The patient denies this, but the psychoanalyst says this is evidence of his denial. Further protestations and evidence that he has had relationships with women are also taken to be evidence of his "denial". The point is that to the pyschoanalyst, nothing that the patient does can make false the proposition that the patient is a homosexual. To Popper and other falsificationists, this means that the psychoanalyst is practising bad science (or not practising science at all) because there isn't any evidence that could be presented (even theoretical evidence) that would convince him otherwise.
Anthony Flew explains this point via his "parable of the gardener":
"Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?" "
(From Anthony Flew's "Reason and Responsibility", [Link](Mouse over link to see full location))
The idea being basically that if there's no possible evidence that could prove a hypothesis wrong, then that hypothesis is not a scientific one.
Science relies on extending hypothesis from some evidence to make general claims. For example, a chemist might tests air around them and find that the air they've investigated always contains oxygen. After a sufficient number of investigations, they might say that all air on earth has oxygen on it. This methodology is valid because there is theoretical evidence that would prove the general claim to be false - in this example, finding a sample of air on earth which didn't contain any oxygen would prove the original hypothesis false and mean that the hypothesis would need to be abandoned or reworked.
Popper's idea has basis in logic, which I can explain in more depth if you want me to, but as I'm unsure of your level I don't want to scare you with symbols. But basically, in logic, any proposition can be shown to be false if you can deduce a contradiction from it.
Some other possibly useful links:
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location) (this one is more advanced)
All the best. If you think I can be of more help, feel free to send a question to my inbox.
]
Here is a site that may be helpful
[Link](Mouse over link to see full location)
Hope it helps.
]
More Questions: |