Karl Popper on Science : Conjectures and Refutations Emmanuel Udoh Karl Popper (1963). Science:...
-
Upload
anita-dedman -
Category
Documents
-
view
230 -
download
7
Transcript of Karl Popper on Science : Conjectures and Refutations Emmanuel Udoh Karl Popper (1963). Science:...
Karl Popper on Science: Conjectures and Refutations
Emmanuel Udoh
Karl Popper (1963). Science: Conjecture and refutations
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (1902 - 1994)
BioAustrian-British Philosopher
Brought four paradigm shifts to philosophical thought
Interests: Philosophical, Social, Political and Historical
1919: The Problem of Demarcation
When should a
theory be ranked as science?
How do you
distinguish science
from pseudo-science?
Popper’s ‘17 Theses’
1. It is easy to obtain
confirmations for nearly
every theory
2. Confirmations should count only if they
are a result of risky
predictions
3. Every ‘good’
scientific theory is a prohibition
4. A theory which is not refutable is unscientific
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to
falsify it
6. Confirmation should only
count when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory
7. Some genuinely testable theories,
when found to be false,
are still upheld by
their admirers
Popper’s ‘17 Theses’
8. There are no
ultimate sources of knowledge
9. The proper
epistemological
question is not one about
sources, but
whether it agrees
with the facts
10. The most
important source of
our knowledge is tradition
11. knowledge
cannot start from nothing -a
tabula rasa- nor yet from
observation
12. The advance of knowledge
consists, mainly, in
the modificati
on of earlier
knowledge
13. There is no
criterion of truth,
though we possess
the criteria to recognize error and
falsity
14. Neither
observation nor
reason are authorities
15. Testability
has degrees;
the theory which takes
more risks is more
testable, and
therefore, better
16. Every solution of a problem raises new unsolved problems
17. All scientific
knowledge is
hypothetical,
conjectural, and
inherently fallible
Popper’s Critique of the ‘Sciences’ of his time
Marxist Theory of History• Testable• Falsified• Conventionalist
twist• Not Scientific
Astrology• Soothsaying• Confirmationist• Not falsifiable• Not scientific
Psychoanalytic Theories (Freud & Adler)• Non-testable• Verificationist• Not scientific
Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation• Falsifiable• Refutable• Scientific
The Problem of Induction
David Hume’s dilemma: Psychological explanation of induction
Inductive reasoning leads to generalizations & infinite regress :
e.g. All swans I’ve seen are white…therefore, all swans are white
Inductive generalizations (custom, habit, repetition) lack logical justification
Popper’s verdict: Scientific conjectures are logically prior to observations
What should the method of science be?
Observation -> Theory Dogmatic attitude
Pseudo Science Myth or Pre-science
Hypothesis -> Observation Scientific attitude
Science Critical (analytic), rational
Popper’s criterion of scientificity
Falsifiability, or refutability or testability: A logical possibility to be refuted by a probable, true, observation statement
The Critical (Scientific) Method
P1 (Initial Problem)
TT (Tentative theories)
EE (error elimination, empirical
falsification, experiment, critical
argument, refutation
P (New Problems 2, 3,
4, etc.)
An epistemological process of (Darwinian) “natural selection”
How scientific knowledge grows
The best theories survive, while the inadequate ones are tossed away by scientific examination Risky conjectures ensure the survival of the fittest ideas
Qualities of a good scientific theory
Vs(a) CtT(a) CtF(a)
Probability, Knowledge and Verisimilitude
Some questions for discussion
In what ways has Popper’s thoughts influenced scientific enquiry and research today?
With a Popperian mindset, which of these is science…Clinical Psychoanalysis, Physics, Accounting, Philosophy of Science, Pharmacy, Informatics, Astronomy, logic, Metaphysics?
Do you share the view that following Popper’s theory logically, theories cannot be definitively refuted any more than they can be verified or proved?
Popper claimed to have "solved Hume's problem“. He tries to deny that the accumulation of observational evidence ever leads to the formation of hypotheses. Yet to the question of where a hypothesis comes from, Popper replies ‘from the refutation of a prior hypothesis, not from the collection of observational evidence’. Has Popper himself not fallen into induction?
Bibliography
Artigas, M. (n.d.). The Ethical Roots of Karl Popper's Epistemology. Jacques Maritain Center: Retrieved September 29, 2014, from http://www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/artigas.htm
Bawden, D., Robinson, L. (2013). Introduction to information science (49-50). Chicago: Neal Schuman.
Brookes, B. C. (1980). The foundations of information science. Part 1: philosophical aspects, Journal of Information Science, 2(3/4), 125-33.
Champion, R. (n.d.). Popper's Evolutionary Theory of Knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.the-rathouse.com/poptheoryknow.html
Champion, R. (n.d.). Popperian "Turns": Conjectural, Objectivist, Social, Metaphysical. Retrieved from http://www.the-rathouse.com/Pop-Schol/PopperTurns.html
Dioguardi, M. (2010, February 2). Karl Popper’s Nine Theses Concerning Epistemology | Critical Rationalism Blog. Accessed September 4, 2013. http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2010/02/02/karl-poppers- nine-theses-concerning-epistemology/ also Karl Popper (Author), M.A. Notturno (Editor) The Myth of the Framework, Chapter 4, page 93 to 94 Routledge; New Ed edition (January 25, 1996)
Hjørland, B. (1992). The concept of ‘subject’ in information science, Journal of documentation, 48(2), 172-200.
Notturno, M. A.(2000) Science and the open society: the future of Karl Popper’s Philosophy, Budapest: Central European University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge. section xiv.
Bibliography
Popper’s Theory of Epistemology: A Perpetual Falsifiable Journey Towards Truth. (n.d.). Retrieved September 4, 2013, from http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21727
Popper, K.R. (March 2, 2001). All Life is Problem Solving, London: Routledge. Chapter 7 says "A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right..."
Popper, K. R. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul 1965, p. 67. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/html/10150/105705/ethikskript/trita.htm
Popper, K. R. (1945, reprint 2006). (chapters 23,24). The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume Two, Routledge
Popper, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery, English translation 1959, 109). Originally, Logik der Forschung, Vienna: Julius Springer Verlag, 1934.
Popper, K. R. (1976), ‘A Note on Verisimilitude’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 27, 147-159.
Popper, K. (1987), Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, in: Gerard Radnitzky and William W. Bartley, III (editors), Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, p. 141.
Wettersten, J. R. (2007). Popper and Critical Rationalism, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved September 4, 2013, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/cr-ratio/