Kuhn vs. Popper
"But is sensory experience fixed and neutral? Are theories simply man-made interpretations of given data? The epistemological viewpoint that has most often guided Western philosophy for three centuries dictates an immediate and unequivocal Yes! Yet this viewpoint no longer functions effectively, and the attempts to make it to do so through the introduction of a neutral language of observations now seem to me hopeless." This is how Kuhn attacked epistemology which is the logic of the scientific theory of the scientific method. Kuhn used the history of science to come up with this result as an anti-realist; whereas Popper defended its methodological realism. The discovery of O2 clearly describes us the thing that Kuhn supported. Lavoisier and Priestley were two scientists who made searches about oxygen. Priestley, by sticking with the older paradigm, had seen dephlogisticated air when he saw oxygen. On the other hand, Lavoisier had seen oxygen as itself because he learned to see his environment from a newer world view; in other words, from a newer paradigm. As you see, Priestley and Lavoisier both saw oxygen, but they interpreted their observations differently. This example contradicts with the epistemological perspective for it s
ays that sensory experience is fixed and neutral. Similarly, Aristotle and Galileo both saw pendulums, but interpreted differently. By looking at the history of science, it is easy to duplicate this kind of examples. These examples show us that what we perceive is highly related with what we have already known. concerned with observations and which could be false - but pseudo-scientific (e.g. marxism) and metaphysical (e.g. idealism, determinism) theories cannot. By combining all of these, it can be figured out that a theory is scientific if it can be falsified; in addition to this, it is true and real until it is falsified. Suppose that we have a theory, that is, if you heat liquids their density decreases. According to Popper's method, this is our start point. Our theory is falsifiable; therefore, it is scientific and it is currently true and real. Now, we should apply deductive testing. In order to do this, we should break our theory into predictions and test them separately. Let's break our theory into pieces: if we heat alcohol its density decreases. This is only one piece. When we test this prediction, we see that our theory is correct for this case and it is still true and real. Let's take another piece: if we heat water, its density decreases. When we test this prediction, we see that between 0-4 0C its density increases. Then, the situation of water becomes an auxiliary hypotheses for our theory. As a result, our theory is falsified, so it is not true and real anymore. Kuhn rejects the idea of constant development. According to Kuhn, science does not progress from lesser to greater truth, but rather remains fixated on a particular dogma or explan
Some common words found in the essay are:
According Kuhn, Darwinism Kuhn, According Popper's, According Popper, , Lavoisier Priestley, Aristotle Galileo, Priestley Lavoisier, Accordingly Kuhn, Secondly Popper, true real, scientific theory, density decreases, history science, constant development, science progress, increasing puzzle solutions, increasing puzzle, break theory, theory scientific, puzzle solutions, simply man-made interpretations, idea constant development, man-made interpretations data, theories simply man-made,
Approximate Word count = 1129
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
