Popper's Falsification Theory and Kuhn's Paradigms Approach - Essay Example

?Different Approaches to Development of Scientific Method in 20th century: Karl Popper's Falsification Theory and Thomas Kuhn's Paradigms Approach. The strong emphasis of the use of scientific methods and systematic procedures in research often suggests to students that the scientific processes are a unanimously accepted set of procedures that are impermeable to change. Yet, with deeper understanding of the scientific methods prevalent it becomes evident that the methods prescribed to can differ depending on the philosophical bent of the individual. Almost every branch of science has accepted procedures and doctrines that govern the research conducted; and the methods of conducting this research is an important part of the philosophies taught along with the said science. The argument about the best methods to study data and make sense of it has been continuing from the earliest civilizations. The Indus and Egyptian civilizations had conducted research into medicine and agriculture that was systematically laid out and passed from generation to generation. Babylonian documents express a scientific documentation of astronomy; and the pre-Socratic Greeks have discussed the presence of atom – like units if physics. The first step towards empiricism as a method was possibly Aristotle; who established the value of deductive reasoning. On the other hand, Muslim physicist Ibn al-Haytham demonstrated the use of scientific procedures that are similar to the inductive inferences drawn by present day researchers. Robert Grosseteste and later Roger bacon (1265) discussed the procedures of science. Bacon has described the process of observation followed by hypothesis formation and then experimentation in his trilogy Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium. Galileo was the first to expound the use of experiments as a research tools and a means to understanding the world. Francis Bacon (1561–1626) continued Galileo’s move away from Aristotelian philosophy; and towards objective experimentation and observation, which was further fueled by the works of Descartes (1637). These methods provided the basis on which Newton suggested his theories to understand the world around us. Immanuel Kant did attempt in the 18th century to reconcile what he believed was the best of both previous methods, and provided a new method of hypothesis testing through his works. The debate has continued into the 20th century; with the most significant contributions coming from Karl Popper in 1934, starting with his first publication “The Logic of Science Discovery” and from Thomas Kuhn in 1962 with his “The Structure of Scientific Revolution”. Popper who was critical of the inductivism and naturalism as well as positivism principles that were extensively used in scientific research till that point chose to establish his Falsification theory and enable a more controlled understanding of science. According the Popper, the potential for falsiblity was what distinguished science and scientific information from all that was not scientific. He believed that through experimentation, replication and verification it was possible to examine the theories that were proposed to explain natural phenomena; and to distinguish the truly scientific theories from those that were not. He introduced the term “critical rationalism” to explain this process. Popper’s work was a reaction to the classic empiricism that based theory on observed data; and did not attempt to evaluate the strength of the said theory. Through his work, Popper established the need and importance of falsifying theories – that is - -of examining them critically and accepting only those ideas that are refutable and testable. Theories that cannot be tested and thus, verified were considered as unscientific and were to be discarded in favor of other, more refutable theories. These principles have become ingrained in the scientific methods of the research conducted over the half century succeeding Popper’s work; and the effects of these principles have been observed in the way research is conducted and theories developed in all kinds of subjects from Physics to Psychology. Popper’s ideas of scientific research have been instrumental in a distinct paradigm shift; but they are not unanimously accepted. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published his book - The Structure of Scientific Revolution. SSR, as this paradigm is called, required a re-evaluation of the scientific methods that were being accepted up to that moment. According the Khun, the belief that facts accumulate in a linear fashion is not an acceptable notion; and that there are times when new techniques and information aid the re-evaluation of data and explanations that were once considered as acceptable. Kuhn believes that the best theoretical models are those that best explain the maximum number of instances. Thus, it is necessary that the theory be viewed as a fluid and changeable structure that grows as new information is obtained. When a theory is not able to explain adequate number of instances and the anomalies increase in number and importance, it becomes necessary to review the theory and this leads to a paradigm shift. Kuhn has divided this process into three stages – the first being the pre-paradigm, the second is that of the normal science and the third is the revolutionary science. In the pre-paradigm phase, there is no particular theory that is used to explain a given set of phenomena; and through research, many competing theories are examined and evaluated. The theory that maximally explains the phenomena being studied becomes accepted as the paradigm that is followed; and consensus starts to be built on the methods, experimental techniques and data collection procedures that best suit the established paradigm. At this point, the second stage of Normal science commences. At this point, a majority of the research conducted uses the established techniques and methods to gain further knowledge. As understanding progresses, that may be some anomalies that are not explained by the present paradigm; and dissent begins to rise. At times, these may be explained with further research; but at other times, these cases may become so numerous, that it becomes difficult to accept the established paradigm and theories as useful; and there is a need to re-evaluate the value of the said paradigm. This ushers in the phase of Revolutionary science that leads to either an editing of the established paradigm; or the establishing of a new one. At this point, it is necessary to remember that the theories of the ole paradigm cannot be tested in the new paradigm, and vice-versa. Kuhn’s work has also been criticized as difficult to apply; but with time, his ideas have gained acceptance, and present day research methods draw heavily from this structure of scientific revolution. Already, there seems to be a need to find a broader explanation that encompasses the strengths of both Popper’s and Kuhn’s work. Although it is tempting to believe that a final answer that provides the ideal scientific methods is possible; it is necessary to understand that the needs of science change with the subject matter, the understanding of phenomena, and the questions to be answered. Thus, the growth and modification of the ideal structure of scientific methods will continue till research is conducted; and the debate over the more appropriate techniques will also be on-going. References Achinstein, P. (2004). Science Rules: A Historical Introduction to Scientific Methods. N.Y.: Johns Hopkins University Press. Crombie, A. C. (1971). Robert Grosseteste and the Origins of Experimental Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gower, B. (1997). Scientific Method: An Historical and Philosophical Introduction, Routledge. pp. 48-2. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Radnitzky, G., Bartley, W. W. (eds). (1987). Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press Russell, B. (2000). History of Western Philosophy, Routledge, pp. 529-3. Read More