Karl Poppers Falsifiability Essay -- Scientific Method Science

Karl Poppers FalsifiabilitySir Karl Poppers lecture was very thought provoking concerning where to draw the line. unconnected most people, the severeness of the opening was not his concern as much as how that validity is determined. This is an issue that really does not get the attention that it deserves. Poppers claims concerning, When should a theory be ranked as scientific? and Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory? seems to be put unneurotic in the following summary. At first Popper seems to just be criticizing the integrity of some sciences and/or scientists who nebulously back their vague and widely distri hardlyed theories with references to observations that may be inconclusive or scanty which they presumably entreat scientific method. He cites Freud and Adlers psycho logical theories, as well as the socio-economic or historic theory or Karl Marx as theories in which Whatever happens al looks confirms it. The overarching or oversimplifi cation of these theories which seem to many to be a strength, for Popper was truely a weakness. With theories such as these anything could be interpreted into them (or the theory could be interpreted into the evidece). Thus, Popper came to the conclusion that unless a theory can be proven wrong, it cannot be labeled as scientific. He as well as claimed that risky predictions should be made and be testable. Also, confirming evidence should not count unless it is an attempt to falsify the theory. Now, Poppers concern the problem of the logic of science or the logical problem of instalment. Popper sees foundation as having the same basic problem as the overgeneralization principle of the psychological, historic theories, ect. He regards no actual rule of induction ... ...et who is to determine the evidence and theory to determine whether it is ad hoc? More importantly, when interpreting this, no matter who does it, how will you get past induction when interpreting the theory and/ or evidence? I seem to hop off the boat when Popper completely throws out induction. Induction may be use loosely, but Popper plane quotes Born in saying valid induction putting it in the realm of logic (p. 25). I could understand being disbelieving of private inferences, but valid induction seems crucial. This happens to bring up another point. It is the conjectures to jump to conclusions--often after one single observation that he cites as the way science is through (p. 25). Is this not diametrical opposed to his main point that we must be more stringent and not allow people with personal conjectures (like Freud or Marx) to call what they did science? Karl Poppers Falsifiability Essay -- Scientific Method ScienceKarl Poppers FalsifiabilitySir Karl Poppers lecture was very thought provoking concerning where to draw the line. Unlike most people, the validity of the theory was not his concern as much as how that validity is determined. This is an issue that really does not get the attention that it deserves. Poppers claims concerning, When should a theory be ranked as scientific? and Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory? seems to be put together in the following summary. At first Popper seems to just be criticizing the integrity of some sciences and/or scientists who nebulously back their vague and general theories with references to observations that may be inconclusive or scanty which they presumably call scientific method. He cites Freud and Adlers psychological theories, as well as the socio-economic or historical theory or Karl Marx as theories in which Whatever happens always confirms it. The overarching or oversimplification of these theories which seem to many to be a strength, for Popper was actually a weakness. With theories such as these anything could be interpreted into them (or the theory could be interpreted into the evidece). Thus, Popper came to the conclusion that unless a theory can be pr oven wrong, it cannot be labeled as scientific. He also claimed that risky predictions should be made and be testable. Also, confirming evidence should not count unless it is an attempt to falsify the theory. Now, Poppers concern the problem of the logic of science or the logical problem of induction. Popper sees induction as having the same basic problem as the overgeneralization principle of the psychological, historic theories, ect. He regards no actual rule of induction ... ...et who is to determine the evidence and theory to determine whether it is ad hoc? More importantly, when interpreting this, no matter who does it, how will you get past induction when interpreting the theory and/or evidence? I seem to hop off the boat when Popper completely throws out induction. Induction may be used loosely, but Popper even quotes Born in saying valid induction putting it in the realm of logic (p. 25). I could understand being skeptical of personal inferences, but valid induction seems c rucial. This happens to bring up another point. It is the conjectures to jump to conclusions--often after one single observation that he cites as the way science is done (p. 25). Is this not diametrical opposed to his main point that we must be more stringent and not allow people with personal conjectures (like Freud or Marx) to call what they did science?