PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 1
Popper
Problem of demarcation: Tried to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, when a theory can
be considered as scientific.
Science > empirical method
Pseudoscience > non-empirical or pseudo empirical method, observations and experiments that do not
come up to scientific standards.
Doubts on Freud’s psychoanalysis, Marx theory and Alfred Adler’s theory on individual psychology.
Not because of the measurement or the nature of truth
Due to their resemblance with myths rather than sciences
Admirers of the theories > amazed be the apparent explanatory power > open eyes to a truth that could
explain everything in the world. Incessant stream of confirmations
In favor of induction not in the Hume perspective. He did not support the possibility of theory free
observations > came up with falsifiability.
The logic of falsifiability and methodology differ
Demarcation theory (formal): A theory is scientific only if it divides the class of basic
statements in two non-empty classes:
a) Inconsistent with basic statements or which prohibits –potential falsifiers (if true, falsify
theory)
b) Consistent with basic statements or which it permits (if true, confirms theory)
Goal: Eliminate false theories, and determine which of the remaining the best available one is (the
highest level of explanatory force and predictive power).
The fact that some theories are non-scientific that does not make them less important.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory, if
we look for them.
2. Confirmations should only count as results of risky predictions, events that
we expected to refute the theory.
3. A “good” scientific theory should forbid certain things to happen, the more
it forbids the better theory it is. Prohibitive
4. A theory that is not refutable is not scientific. Refutability is a vice.
Conclusions 5. Testability is falsifiability. Some theories are more testable, more exposed
and they take more risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is a very serious
attempt to falsify a theory.
7. False testable theories still held by admirers (by ad hoc explanation or
interpretation) but that destroys/lowers the scientific status.
General conclusion: criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability,
refutability, or testability.
Scientists are problem-solvers; they begin with problems and not observations or
“bare facts”.
Deductive testing of theories that are not products of logic and conclusions are
inferred from a tentative hypothesis, and then they are compared to one another
because there are no pure facts. All statements-theory laden.
Logic of scientific discovery:
a) Formal, test of internal consistency to check of any possible
, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 2
contradictions
b) Semi-formal, axiomatising of the theory to distinguish between empirical
and logical elements (analytic, synthetic) > make logic of theory explicit.
c) Comparison of new and existing ones. “Any theory X is better than a
‘rival’ theory Y if X has greater empirical content, and hence greater
predictive power, than Y”
d) Test by empirical applications of conclusions.
If true the theory is confirmed but not verified
If not the scientists try to find a better one (logical falsification)
Not traditional empiricist > experience cannot determine theory,
delimits theory, shows the wrong not the true. Also observations-
theory laden
Kuhn
Scientific revolutions: tradition shattering compliments to the traditional-bound activity of normal
science. Difficult and time-consuming, greatly resisted by the established community.
Normal science: research based upon one or more scientific achievements that a particular community
recognizes as foundations.
Achievements = paradigms > not seen before so the adherents stay away from other models,
open-ended so the refined group and the students resolve problems.
Collection of facts > Pre-paradigmatic schools >Paradigms emerge from the completion of pre-
paradigmatic schools. > profession/discipline
Pradigm: better theory than competitors but never explain all facts that is confronted with.
Normal science: The actualization of the paradigm’s promise of success.
Restrictions from paradigms > focus of attention to small range of
problems > investigation in depth > when it functions, nature of research
changes.
Normal science = Puzzle solving
Normal Science
Aim of research to discover what was known in advance > when outcome not
within the expected range it is a failure. Results add to scope and precision of a
paradigm’s application.
Way of obtaining results > challenge of puzzle
Puzzle = not assured solution
Rules used by scientists who share paradigm are not easily determined.
Scientific disagreement on paradigm’s interpretation
Paradigm does not imply set of rules
Priority of
Scientists guided by tacit knowledge > through practice
paradigms
Attributes of paradigm not apparent always.
Changes in paradigm, affect different sub-specialties differently. So, a revolution
within one does not extend to another.
Scientific Paradigm changes can result from discovery brought about by encounters with
discoveries anomaly.
Through discovery- novelty of fact
Through intervention- novelty of theory
These changes induce expectations > area of anomaly is explored >
change complete when a paradigm adjusts to the anomalous to become
Popper
Problem of demarcation: Tried to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, when a theory can
be considered as scientific.
Science > empirical method
Pseudoscience > non-empirical or pseudo empirical method, observations and experiments that do not
come up to scientific standards.
Doubts on Freud’s psychoanalysis, Marx theory and Alfred Adler’s theory on individual psychology.
Not because of the measurement or the nature of truth
Due to their resemblance with myths rather than sciences
Admirers of the theories > amazed be the apparent explanatory power > open eyes to a truth that could
explain everything in the world. Incessant stream of confirmations
In favor of induction not in the Hume perspective. He did not support the possibility of theory free
observations > came up with falsifiability.
The logic of falsifiability and methodology differ
Demarcation theory (formal): A theory is scientific only if it divides the class of basic
statements in two non-empty classes:
a) Inconsistent with basic statements or which prohibits –potential falsifiers (if true, falsify
theory)
b) Consistent with basic statements or which it permits (if true, confirms theory)
Goal: Eliminate false theories, and determine which of the remaining the best available one is (the
highest level of explanatory force and predictive power).
The fact that some theories are non-scientific that does not make them less important.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations or verifications for nearly every theory, if
we look for them.
2. Confirmations should only count as results of risky predictions, events that
we expected to refute the theory.
3. A “good” scientific theory should forbid certain things to happen, the more
it forbids the better theory it is. Prohibitive
4. A theory that is not refutable is not scientific. Refutability is a vice.
Conclusions 5. Testability is falsifiability. Some theories are more testable, more exposed
and they take more risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is a very serious
attempt to falsify a theory.
7. False testable theories still held by admirers (by ad hoc explanation or
interpretation) but that destroys/lowers the scientific status.
General conclusion: criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability,
refutability, or testability.
Scientists are problem-solvers; they begin with problems and not observations or
“bare facts”.
Deductive testing of theories that are not products of logic and conclusions are
inferred from a tentative hypothesis, and then they are compared to one another
because there are no pure facts. All statements-theory laden.
Logic of scientific discovery:
a) Formal, test of internal consistency to check of any possible
, PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE 2
contradictions
b) Semi-formal, axiomatising of the theory to distinguish between empirical
and logical elements (analytic, synthetic) > make logic of theory explicit.
c) Comparison of new and existing ones. “Any theory X is better than a
‘rival’ theory Y if X has greater empirical content, and hence greater
predictive power, than Y”
d) Test by empirical applications of conclusions.
If true the theory is confirmed but not verified
If not the scientists try to find a better one (logical falsification)
Not traditional empiricist > experience cannot determine theory,
delimits theory, shows the wrong not the true. Also observations-
theory laden
Kuhn
Scientific revolutions: tradition shattering compliments to the traditional-bound activity of normal
science. Difficult and time-consuming, greatly resisted by the established community.
Normal science: research based upon one or more scientific achievements that a particular community
recognizes as foundations.
Achievements = paradigms > not seen before so the adherents stay away from other models,
open-ended so the refined group and the students resolve problems.
Collection of facts > Pre-paradigmatic schools >Paradigms emerge from the completion of pre-
paradigmatic schools. > profession/discipline
Pradigm: better theory than competitors but never explain all facts that is confronted with.
Normal science: The actualization of the paradigm’s promise of success.
Restrictions from paradigms > focus of attention to small range of
problems > investigation in depth > when it functions, nature of research
changes.
Normal science = Puzzle solving
Normal Science
Aim of research to discover what was known in advance > when outcome not
within the expected range it is a failure. Results add to scope and precision of a
paradigm’s application.
Way of obtaining results > challenge of puzzle
Puzzle = not assured solution
Rules used by scientists who share paradigm are not easily determined.
Scientific disagreement on paradigm’s interpretation
Paradigm does not imply set of rules
Priority of
Scientists guided by tacit knowledge > through practice
paradigms
Attributes of paradigm not apparent always.
Changes in paradigm, affect different sub-specialties differently. So, a revolution
within one does not extend to another.
Scientific Paradigm changes can result from discovery brought about by encounters with
discoveries anomaly.
Through discovery- novelty of fact
Through intervention- novelty of theory
These changes induce expectations > area of anomaly is explored >
change complete when a paradigm adjusts to the anomalous to become
