In this essay I attempt to answer the following two questions: What is Karl Popper's view of science? Do I feel that Thomas Kuhn makes important points against it? The two articles that I make reference to are "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" by Karl Popper and "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" by Thomas Kuhn. Both articles appear in the textbook to this class.

In the article, "Science: Conjectures and Refutations", Karl Popper attempts to describe the criteria that a theory must meet for it to be considered scientific. He calls this puzzle the problem of demarcation. Popper summarizes his arguments by saying, "the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." Kuhn says that he and Popper often agree as to what constitutes science and non-science. He claims that he differs with Popper in the methods that he uses to arrive at his conclusions. Kuhn says that if a line of demarcation is to be sought between science and non-science, we shouldn't look for a "sharp or decisive" one, because science is not objective, as Popper would have us believe, but subjective.

Popper claims that the common answer to the proble

Popper says that Astrology is not science because astrologers were too impressed with confirming evidence. Also astrology is not falsifiable. Astrologers make vague predictions and can explain any apparent refutation to the validity of the theory. Kuhn refutes this point by claiming that Popper's assertion that astrologers escape falsification by "explaining away" any possible refutations is impossible to support. Kuhn uses the example of "reputable records" that indicate many instances where astrology categorically failed. Astrology is a very complex science (or non-science, depending on your opinion). Measuring the planets and the stars is hard, and in the days when astrology was more popular, the tools for measuring were crude. In addition, few people knew exactly when they were born, a crucial detail needed to perform accurate astrology.

Popper is "dissatisfied" with the Marxist theory of history, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology. He sets out to describe why his gut tells him that these are unscientific theories. He argues against theories that have explanatory power. Popper has a problem with Marxists because no matter what happens in the world, they can explain the event in light of their theory. When a person believes a theory to be true, everything that happens is a verification of the truthfulness of the theory. Popper's example is how a Marxists can't read a newspaper without finding evidence to confirm their theory on every page. Supporters of these theories claim that their great explanatory properties are the strength of their theories. Popper thinks that it is their weakness. He contrasts Marxism with Einstein's Gravitational Theory, noting the main difference is that Einstein's theory is a risky prediction. He says, "The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation..." Popper says that confirmations or verifications are easy to come up with for any theory; "Confirmations should only count if they are the result of risky predictions."

Popper's ideas are not descriptively accurate of how science is performed. Popper says that his theories are normative theories, how we should behave, not how we actually behave. Popper says that scientists should

Some common words found in the essay are:
Popper Astrology, Kuhn Popper, Popper Kuhn, Popper Marxists, Popper Marxism, Karl Popper, Gravitational Theory, According Popper, Steven Gould, Thomas Kuhn, astrology science, science non-science, science pseudo-science, science conjectures refutations, science conjectures, conjectures refutations, karl popper, refutations karl, theory proven, kuhn popper, conjectures refutations karl, refutations karl popper, kuhn argues,
Approximate Word count = 1500
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)