Karl Popper's Demarcation
The boundary between science and pseudo science, better known as the demarcation issue has been in debate for decades between philosophers of science in order to find the basis on which this separation can exist. The likes of Karl Popper initially introduced the demarcation criterion called “falsificationism” which states that falsifiability is the “logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment”[1] and it was on this beginning that Popper was able to make the distinctive separation of science from pseudoscience. However if Popper’s approach was taken into consideration, many scientific discoveries would have been impoverished, since the theory behind the discovery would have been deemed
…show more content…
Popper’s demarcation has been critisized for its disregard for legitimate science and for allowing pseudoscience the eminence of a science. This essay contrasts the ideologies of Karl Popper with the 3 philosophers with regards to certain scientific discoveries which consequently reveal the inadequacy of falsificationism as a demarcation criterion.
Karl Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science.”[2]The scientific revelation that contradicts Popper’s proposal is Isaac newtons concept of gravity. Gravity through newtons explanation is an invisible, mass less, attractive force between objects that have mass.[3] It is what keeps humans on earth and the earth’s orbiting of the sun. With regards to Popper the theory of gravity is in fact a pseudoscience since it is simply a question of how can one undergo a physical experiment or observation in which newtons theory of gravitation can be refuted? The lack of proof to support this theory is the principle of Poppers disregard to gravitation as a scientific discovery. On the contrary, Paul Thagard disapproval of Poppers ideology is prominently seen here, as …show more content…
The demarcation that separates the two sciences is built on a very distinctive basis for the remaining philosophers. Analysis of Newtonians ideas suggest that the latter discoveries would have been delayed since there were many attempts to falsify Netwon's theories. Which in turn would have belated the findings of Neptune and prevented the progression of the kinetic theory of gases. Consequently the establishment of the quantum theory would also have ceased to exist since the understanding of mechanics would have been disregarded had Poppers idea of falsificationism and demarcation were taken into account. All these scientific revelations have led to great inventions and further scientific advancements. The quantum theories through mathematical laws were in fact able to provide scientists the “reasons for the way in which a black body radiates heat”[6]. According to Popper the only way that science can advance is when one conjectures then another refutes. If there is no refute or it is considered insufficient then it is not taken into consideration as scientific progression. If this approach was to be followed a great deal of knowledge would be lost as Popper doesn’t allow time for a theory to prove its accuracy. It is there evident that falsificationism is not adequate as a demarcation
Popper’s demarcation has been critisized for its disregard for legitimate science and for allowing pseudoscience the eminence of a science. This essay contrasts the ideologies of Karl Popper with the 3 philosophers with regards to certain scientific discoveries which consequently reveal the inadequacy of falsificationism as a demarcation criterion.
Karl Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science.”[2]The scientific revelation that contradicts Popper’s proposal is Isaac newtons concept of gravity. Gravity through newtons explanation is an invisible, mass less, attractive force between objects that have mass.[3] It is what keeps humans on earth and the earth’s orbiting of the sun. With regards to Popper the theory of gravity is in fact a pseudoscience since it is simply a question of how can one undergo a physical experiment or observation in which newtons theory of gravitation can be refuted? The lack of proof to support this theory is the principle of Poppers disregard to gravitation as a scientific discovery. On the contrary, Paul Thagard disapproval of Poppers ideology is prominently seen here, as …show more content…
The demarcation that separates the two sciences is built on a very distinctive basis for the remaining philosophers. Analysis of Newtonians ideas suggest that the latter discoveries would have been delayed since there were many attempts to falsify Netwon's theories. Which in turn would have belated the findings of Neptune and prevented the progression of the kinetic theory of gases. Consequently the establishment of the quantum theory would also have ceased to exist since the understanding of mechanics would have been disregarded had Poppers idea of falsificationism and demarcation were taken into account. All these scientific revelations have led to great inventions and further scientific advancements. The quantum theories through mathematical laws were in fact able to provide scientists the “reasons for the way in which a black body radiates heat”[6]. According to Popper the only way that science can advance is when one conjectures then another refutes. If there is no refute or it is considered insufficient then it is not taken into consideration as scientific progression. If this approach was to be followed a great deal of knowledge would be lost as Popper doesn’t allow time for a theory to prove its accuracy. It is there evident that falsificationism is not adequate as a demarcation