0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
97 vues17 pages
Karl Popper developed a philosophy of science that emphasized falsification as the criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience. He believed scientific theories could be falsified but not proven true, and that science progresses through conjectures and refutations as theories are improved over time. Thomas Kuhn challenged this view, arguing that scientific change occurs through "paradigm shifts" in how scientists perceive problems, not through strict logical evaluation. Under Kuhn's model, different scientific theories cannot be directly compared or said to be closer to truth.
Karl Popper developed a philosophy of science that emphasized falsification as the criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience. He believed scientific theories could be falsified but not proven true, and that science progresses through conjectures and refutations as theories are improved over time. Thomas Kuhn challenged this view, arguing that scientific change occurs through "paradigm shifts" in how scientists perceive problems, not through strict logical evaluation. Under Kuhn's model, different scientific theories cannot be directly compared or said to be closer to truth.
Karl Popper developed a philosophy of science that emphasized falsification as the criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience. He believed scientific theories could be falsified but not proven true, and that science progresses through conjectures and refutations as theories are improved over time. Thomas Kuhn challenged this view, arguing that scientific change occurs through "paradigm shifts" in how scientists perceive problems, not through strict logical evaluation. Under Kuhn's model, different scientific theories cannot be directly compared or said to be closer to truth.
failure of Logical Positivism to censure pseudo- sciences such as Marxism and Psychoanalysis. Similarity between Popper and the Logical Positivists: both upheld the superior status of scientific knowledge in the Enlightenment tradition.
Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994) Biography Enrolled in the Pedagogic Institute Met Kurt Buhler and Heinrich Gomprez 1922 been in contact with members form the Vienna Circle 1928 received his PhD from University of Vienna. 1935 1936 received invitations to England Biography (contd.) 1937 emigrated to New Zealand 1946 took up readership in Logic and Scientific Method in LSE 1949 received professorship in LSE Retired in 1969 Died on 17 September 1994 in London Poppers Concept of Falsification The concept of falsification. Falsification as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science. In order for a theory to have the status of a scientific theory, it must be falsifiable. Why Marxism, Psychoanalysis and Astrology are regarded as pseudo-science. The role of empirical data in relation to theories; should be able to falsify and not only to confirm theories.
Poppers theory of scientific method We start from a hypothesis or theory, not from empirical facts. A hypothesis/theory is a conjecture (a guess), which has to be empirically tested before it can be accepted or confirmed. Hypothetico-deductivism as the logical form of scientific methodology. Conjectures and refutations as forming the method of science.
Poppers Theory of Scientific Change It is a historical fact that scientific theories change over time, and do not remain static. Example: change from Newtons theory to Einsteins theory, from Ptolemys to Copernicus astronomical theory. Question: Is it a good or bad thing that scientific theories undergo change? Answer 1: For critics of science, scientific change implies that science cannot give us certainty in knowledge. Therefore we cannot believe in science, because what is true today might no longer be true tomorrow. Answer 2: However, for Popper, scientific change is a good thing. It is good because: (i) it shows the rationality of science (ii) the progressiveness of science. For Popper, as scientific theories change, they progress towards the truth.
Thomas Kuhns Philosophy of Science Criticised previous philosophers of science for giving an idealized and not a true picture of science. In order to have a credible philosophical view of science, we must look at science as it was really practised. So we need to know the HISTORY of science. Looking at the history of science, he came up with the idea of the structure of scientific revolutions. That is, the development of science seems to follow a certain pattern, marked by brief periods of scientific revolutions and long periods of normal science. Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996)
1922 : July 18,Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, US 1949 : PhD in Physics Harvard Univ. 1954 : Guggenheim Fellow 1961 : Full Prof. Of History Univ. of Calif. Berkeley 1979 : Prof. Phil. & History of Sc. - MIT 1996 : Died at the age of 73 of cancer in Cambridge The Structure of Scientific Revolutions -written while a graduate student at Harvard Thomas Kuhns Model of The Structural Development of Science Pre - Paradigm Normal science Paradigm Anomalies Crisis Revolution New Normal Science Kuhns Theory of Scientific Change Change in scientific theory is to be explained in terms of psychology and sociology, not logic or philosophy. Kuhn used ideas from gestalt psychology to explain change of scientific theory. For example, change from Ptolemaic theory (earth- centred) to Copernican theory (sun-centred), involved a change in perspective. When theories change in science, this does not mean that we are moving or progressing closer towards the truth.
PTOLEMY COPERNICUS Celestial Models by Ptolemy and Copernicus
Mary Evans Picture Library/Photo Researchers, Inc. 1
The Ptolemaic and Copernican Models in Astronomy
Ptolemy Copernicus (Earth Centred) (Sun Centred)
Gestalt Switch Gestalt switch : What were ducks in the scientists world before the revolution are rabbits afterward Kuhns Theory of Incommensurability Two scientific theories or paradigms cannot be compared since there is no common ground or standard by which they can be compared. The notion of incommensurable is borrowed from mathematics, which means no common standard of measure. So for Kuhn, we cannot say that Newtons theory is better than Aristotles theory, or Einsteins theory is better than Newtons theory. Popper Kuhn 1. Science is open and critical. Science corrects itself through criticism and revision/correction. Science is closed and dogmatic. Scientific education is a dogmatic rather than a critical process where the student has to accept the truth of scientific theories and not criticize them. 2. Theory-change in science shows the rationality of science. Theory-change viewed in terms of logic and philosophy. The rationality of scientific change is explained in terms of falsification. The theory which is more falsifiable, but later confirmed by experiment, is the accepted theory. Also, scientists based their decision on logic and evidence in deciding which theory to accept. Theory-change in science is not determined by rational factors such as logical argument and empirical evidence. Theory change should be understood in terms of psychology and sociology. 3. The development of science is a progression towards the truth. When a theory changes, its truth-content increases and its falsity-content decreases. The development of science only shows progress in terms of problem-solving, and not in terms of getting closer to the truth. No common basis on which we could compare between theories and say that one is closer to the truth than the other (incommensurability thesis). 4. His view of science is influenced more by revolutionary changes in science, such as the change from Newtons to Einsteins theory. Focused more on normal science, i.e. science as it is usually or normally practised where paradigms guide the research or problem-solving process. COMPARISON BETWEEN POPPER AND KUHN