Karl Popper on the other hand was the totalitarian and unadventurous proponent of positivism. Karl and Popper were the contemporaries and criticized each other’s work. The comparison on the philosophies of Kuhn and Popper following attributes are taken into consideration: 1. Differentiation between science and non science Popper opined that science is a method of trial and error. It is a method of assumption and refusal. Science is always accompanied by the group of scholars who check and criticize each other. The foundation of science is its rationality. The openness to criticism should be converted into the willingness of scientists to falsify their theory. Kuhn on the other hand differentiated science and non science through paradigms. Science takes place where there is a major paradigm and non science appears due to lack of dominant paradigm. Thus Kuhn talks about infantile science without a dominant paradigm and a normal science or matured science with a dominant paradigm. He took paradigm as a basic accomplishment which includes both theory and a very good application to the results of observations and experiments. It is very important to keep in mind that though Kuhn differentiated between science and non science through paradigms his differentiation was never based on objectivity. Karl Popper was against the confinement of science within faith and doctrine. Science follows the methods faithfully and these methods are objective. For Popper criticism is a necessary aspect for the scientific method of objectivity. The foundation of scientific rationality lies on the modernist project of reason, doubt, and criticism. To build this rationality science must be open to criticism and adapt critical attitude. Scientific knowledge according to him is snowballing. It is because of the positive approach of the scientists to go through falsification and they should be open to the criticism. According to Kuhn preconception and resistance seem to be the rule rather than the exception. He strongly believes that dogma is an essential part in mature science as the scientific paradigm is an open-ended achievement. It is necessary for the scientists to be assertive in their beliefs in paradigm. Then only they can further ensue to the puzzle solving task. 2. Criticism, Dogmatism and Faith Criticism is mandatory to science according to Popper whereas dogma is mandatory in mature science. Popper believes that faith in science is important one and one should stick on to the scientific methods. Kuhn believes that faith should be in scientific paradigm. Popper opines strongly that objectivity in science lies in scientific method. This opinion made Popper to use the concept of provisional knowledge. Scientific methods are enough to evaluate the merits of scientific theories because, as mentioned above objectivity lies in scientific method. This scientific method is paradigmatic for Kuhn. Objectivity is only feasible within the paradigm. Kuhn says that this scientific method is not able to evaluate the merits of scientific theories in an objective manner because scientific paradigms occur through extra-scientific factors. Scientific Revolution v/s Scientific progress Popper thinks that scientific progress happens through falsification. After going through falsification, the theory either stands true, or it is taken for granted as a provisional knowl
Philosophy of Science “Philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations methods and implications of science.” (Wikipedia) Many scientist propounded different views on philosophy of science. Among them are Wesley Salmon’s Theory of Causation, Lakatos’s “Science and pseudoscience,” etc…
What is the philosophy of science? The answer is actually simple. First, we must be aware of the fact that the various sciences make certain claims about the nature of the universe and human beings. In the process of making these claims, scientists use concepts such as cause and effect, theory, hypothesis, prediction, laws of nature, and so forth.
Due to these reasons, it’s necessary to consider philosophy as a constantly evolving field of investigation. This essay follows this understanding, in advancing a general exploration of what is philosophy. From an overarching contemporary perspective philosophy has been articulated as the investigation of the fundamental problems of life, most specifically those of existence, morality, meaning, and the nature of language (Teichmann).
Hempel, however, finds this use of induction ridiculous and untenable in a scientific situation. One of the major problems is that using induction to form the basis of a scientific experiment inherently involves the assumptions that it is supposed to remove, and is thus completely self defeating.
The arguments that Socrates had put forward to challenge the existing ideas of Athens of that time had been written down by Plato in Apology. The book is written down in a conversational manner by which Socrates defends his position as an atheist and as the one who has corrupted the youth.
My own philosophical approach is that everyone is born with the ability to succeed in some field or the other, it is up to him or her to look for it, find it, and then work hard at achieving the best in that area. Through dedication and hard work, each person can find fulfillment in life, because he or she will be working in the field of choice, which provides best opportunities of enjoyment and good performance.
Scientists need to identify some of the risks involved in using induction and specifically the risks involved in using induction reasoning to come up with scientific principles as well as specific scientific judgments. Practically, induction throws up at least three general causes for concern:
Science is body of organized knowledge leading to the truth which is objective and verifiable and establishes a fact. Natural Science grouped in its various branches practices a methodology of empirically observable phenomenon about material objects obeying certain laws.
e epigraph for the Spirit of the Law is taken from the Metamorphoses of the ancient Roman poet Ovid: “An offspring created without a mother” (2.553). Montesquieu understands his work as offering a creative or original approach to both longstanding and novel problems of