You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Philosophy of Science - Popper's falsificationism vs Hempel's confirmation theory
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Author: Instructor: Course Title: Date: Popper's Falsificationism versus Hempel's Confirmation Theory Both Hempel and Popper are concerned with the testability of scientific hypotheses, but they have different attitudes about the ways it is possible for evidence to bear on a hypothesis.
According to Carl Hempel, deductive logic is a device for preserving truth (Bechtel 5). Therefore, positive evidence is used to confirm a hypothesis. On the other hand, Karl Popper objected that it was logically impossible to confirm or justify theories by using claims of science and observation. Hempel asserts that if the premises of a deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true (Bechtel 5). Therefore, logical arguments should start from some foundation while, according to Popper, theoretical claims are known to have extended beyond the particular observations that were used to support them. According to Popper’s falsification theory, experience, more specifically, sensory experience is a foundation for arriving at a subsequent observation could always prove the best confirmed theory false (Bechtel 5). Hempel and others, who supported the confirmation theory, had a strategy of showing how claims of science might be justified by being derived from sentences that could be confirmed or invalidated by observation. On the other hand, Popper, argued in favor of an alternative in which scientists should strive to falsify hypotheses, in reference to the bold hypotheses that make strong claims about the world (Bechtel 5). Hempel claims that the logic of science, which is confirmation, has a method according to the proponents. ...
Not exactly what you need?