Problem 6 – Hergenhahn + Popper K. Science as Falsification + Pajares F. The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions + Pigliucci M. Popper vs Kuhn
Karl Popper
- Theories of Marx, Freud and Adler were always verified, whatever happened always
confirmed it, Popper said this strength is actually the theories’ weakness
- He changed the conception of science by showing science to be highly subjective
- He disagreed that scientific activity starts with empirical observation
- For Popper, scientific activity starts with a problem and that determines what
observations scientists will make
- The next step: proposing solutions to the problem and finding fault with the
proposed solutions
Popper’s conclusions:
1. It’s easy to obtain confirmation or verification for nearly every theory – if we look for
confirmations
2. Confirmations should count only if they are a result of risky predictions - predictions
that run a real risk of being incorrect
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen and
the more it forbids the better it is
4. A theory which is not refutable is non-scientific
5. Every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify/refute it. Testability is refutability, but
there are degrees: some theories are more testable, some take greater risks
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of testing of a
theory (it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the
theory)
7. Some testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers
- In conclusion: the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, testability
- He created the problem of demarcation: distinguishing between scientific claims and
all other claims
Principle of falsifiability (Hergenhahn)
- The demarcation criterion that distinguished a scientific and nonscientific theory is
the principle of falsifiability
- A major problem of psychological theories is that they engage in postdiction
(explaining the phenomena after it had already occurred
- “all swans are white” can’t be verified except observing all current and future swans
(clearly this is impossible), however observing only one nonwhite swan falsifies the
proposition
- All scientific theories will eventually be found false and be replaced with more
adequate theories
, Thomas Kuhn
Paradigms and normal science
- Paradigm: A viewpoint that is commonly shared with most members of a science
- The paradigm becomes a way of looking and analyzing the subject matter of that
science
- Normal science: The activities of those who accept the paradigm
- These activities become a matter of exploring the implications of that paradigm
- Kuhn compared normal science to puzzle solving:
o like puzzles the problems of normal science have a solution
o there are rules that limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and the
steps by which they are to be obtained
- Normal science and puzzle solving don’t involve creativity
- Pro: a paradigm guarantee’s that certain phenomena are studied in detail and depth
- Con: it blinds scientists to other phenomena and better explanations for what they
are studying
How sciences change
- There must be persistent observations that the currently accepted paradigm can’t
explain: these are called anomalies
- Anomaly: the recognition that nature has violated the paradigm
How does paradigm change come?
- Through discovery: discovery begins with the awareness of the anomaly; the change
is complete when the paradigm is adjusted so the anomaly is now expected
- Invention of a theory: generated by the persistent failure of puzzles to be solved as
they should
o These failures are observed discrepancies between theory and fact
- The recognition of anomalies results in crises that are necessary for the emergence of
novel theories and for paradigm change
- All crises close in one of 3 ways:
o Normal science handles the crisis-provoking problem and returns to normal
o The problem resists because of the failure to possess the necessary tools to
solve it, they leave it for future generations to deal with it
o A new candidate for paradigm emerges:
- A small group of scientists will propose an alternative viewpoint, one that will
account for the anomaly
- There is typically resistance to new paradigm and it’s a slow progress
- Eventually, new paradigm wins and displaces the old one
- A scientific revolution: a non-cumulative developmental episode in which an older
paradigm is replaced by an incompatible new one
- Kuhn portrayed science as a method of inquiry that combines the objective scientific
method and the emotional makeup of scientist
Scientific Revolutions + Pigliucci M. Popper vs Kuhn
Karl Popper
- Theories of Marx, Freud and Adler were always verified, whatever happened always
confirmed it, Popper said this strength is actually the theories’ weakness
- He changed the conception of science by showing science to be highly subjective
- He disagreed that scientific activity starts with empirical observation
- For Popper, scientific activity starts with a problem and that determines what
observations scientists will make
- The next step: proposing solutions to the problem and finding fault with the
proposed solutions
Popper’s conclusions:
1. It’s easy to obtain confirmation or verification for nearly every theory – if we look for
confirmations
2. Confirmations should count only if they are a result of risky predictions - predictions
that run a real risk of being incorrect
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen and
the more it forbids the better it is
4. A theory which is not refutable is non-scientific
5. Every test of a theory is an attempt to falsify/refute it. Testability is refutability, but
there are degrees: some theories are more testable, some take greater risks
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of testing of a
theory (it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the
theory)
7. Some testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers
- In conclusion: the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, refutability, testability
- He created the problem of demarcation: distinguishing between scientific claims and
all other claims
Principle of falsifiability (Hergenhahn)
- The demarcation criterion that distinguished a scientific and nonscientific theory is
the principle of falsifiability
- A major problem of psychological theories is that they engage in postdiction
(explaining the phenomena after it had already occurred
- “all swans are white” can’t be verified except observing all current and future swans
(clearly this is impossible), however observing only one nonwhite swan falsifies the
proposition
- All scientific theories will eventually be found false and be replaced with more
adequate theories
, Thomas Kuhn
Paradigms and normal science
- Paradigm: A viewpoint that is commonly shared with most members of a science
- The paradigm becomes a way of looking and analyzing the subject matter of that
science
- Normal science: The activities of those who accept the paradigm
- These activities become a matter of exploring the implications of that paradigm
- Kuhn compared normal science to puzzle solving:
o like puzzles the problems of normal science have a solution
o there are rules that limit both the nature of acceptable solutions and the
steps by which they are to be obtained
- Normal science and puzzle solving don’t involve creativity
- Pro: a paradigm guarantee’s that certain phenomena are studied in detail and depth
- Con: it blinds scientists to other phenomena and better explanations for what they
are studying
How sciences change
- There must be persistent observations that the currently accepted paradigm can’t
explain: these are called anomalies
- Anomaly: the recognition that nature has violated the paradigm
How does paradigm change come?
- Through discovery: discovery begins with the awareness of the anomaly; the change
is complete when the paradigm is adjusted so the anomaly is now expected
- Invention of a theory: generated by the persistent failure of puzzles to be solved as
they should
o These failures are observed discrepancies between theory and fact
- The recognition of anomalies results in crises that are necessary for the emergence of
novel theories and for paradigm change
- All crises close in one of 3 ways:
o Normal science handles the crisis-provoking problem and returns to normal
o The problem resists because of the failure to possess the necessary tools to
solve it, they leave it for future generations to deal with it
o A new candidate for paradigm emerges:
- A small group of scientists will propose an alternative viewpoint, one that will
account for the anomaly
- There is typically resistance to new paradigm and it’s a slow progress
- Eventually, new paradigm wins and displaces the old one
- A scientific revolution: a non-cumulative developmental episode in which an older
paradigm is replaced by an incompatible new one
- Kuhn portrayed science as a method of inquiry that combines the objective scientific
method and the emotional makeup of scientist
