Philosophy of Science and the Notions of Scientific Progress Found in Popper and Kuhn - Coursework Example

Philosophy of Science Q1 Describe and discuss the notions of scientific progress found in Popper and Kuhn. Are we en d to view that science progresses, and if so, in what does that progress consist? Introduction Sir Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are two of the most influential philosophers of science in the 20th century. Popper, who was born in Vienna, taught at the University of London since 1949, knighted in 1965 and retired in 1969 but continued to be active as a lecturer until his death in 1994. He is best known for his “falsificationism” theory which calls for the constant and never-ending subjection of a theory to a refutation test on the premise that a theory can never be certain to be 100% true. Kuhn, on the other hand, started as physicist, having earned his degree in Harvard with a summa cum laude and ended writing The Structures of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, a very controversial and influential book which claimed that every scientific development is underpinned by a paradigm – or a set of ideas and methods – which becomes the guiding factor in all scientific works undertaken in a particular period. On the basis of the two philosophers’ respective philosophy of science, this paper seeks to prove that the approaches of Popper and Kuhn allow us to view that science indeed progresses. Moreover, these said scientific progresses consist of, in the case of Popper, new theories of events that have not been elucidated previously, new theories that have replaced old theories which have been successfully falsified, the extension of existing theories, and specific theories that diminished general ones (Hunt 2003). Kuhn, on the other hand, believed that a shift from one paradigm to another is non-cumulative, meaning that the new paradigm does not amass the theories and knowledge of the old one since two paradigms are incommensurable, and scientific progress therefore is not the attainment of a fixed scientific goal but is equated with a Darwinian-like passage from one phase to another from “less complex stages to more complex ones” characterised by higher “ accuracy of prediction,” “greater specialisation,” “increase in articulation.” and more “problems solved” (Parrini 1999). Sir Karl Popper: Falsificationism Popper’s work is fundamentally hinged on two principles: the demarcation theory and falsificationism. First, Popper makes a distinction between science and non-science. This demarcation method or the distinction of science from the pseudo-sciences is undertaken by the application of another Popper invented term called falsificationism. Falsificationism is simply the subjection of a theory to a refutation test. If a theory is capable of being subjected to such a test, then it is a science; if not, it is a non-science. It can be fairly assumed that the significance of this test is to simply put in proper perspective which subject or theory is included or precluded from Popper’s study and not as a judgment of its value or importance. The falsification theory first struck Popper when he heard Einstein gave a lecture on the theory of relativity. What amazed Popper was the fact that Einstein’s theory is highly risky because it can be easily made subject to a test that can falsify. According to Popper, a theory which does not allow itself to be refuted because it is so crafted as to make it attune to every possible scrutiny is a pseudo-science. Popper said that Einstein’s theory of physics is a true science because it is characterized by “risk” or that it is open to “falsificationism” in contrast to Freud’s psychoanalytic theory or Marxism’s theory of class struggle - highly abstract theories - which could not be falsified. Although Marxism, according to Popper started out as a true science in that it posited a falsifiable theory, it eventually degenerated into a pseudo-science because it added ad hoc theories when its original theories were falsified (Thornton 2006). For Popper, the only kind of test that can be made on a theory is to falsify it. To him, as far as theories go “confirmation is a myth.” A theory can never be validly confirmed by its compatibility with observation; it can only be falsified. .Like Hume, Popper saw a problem with the induction method to test scientific theories. The way to test a theory is to take that theory and subject it to inferences with the objective of falsifying it. If the theory fails in the light of the inference, then the theory has failed but if not then the conclusion is that the theory has not been falsified rather than confirmed. This is because Popper believed that scientists can never be certain that a theory is 100% certain or true. In other words, a theory must be open for subjection to endless test of falsification. The veracity of this claim can best be illustrated by Newton’s physics which was thought for a time to be infallible. In the 20th century however, some aspects of it were proven to be untrue (Godfrey-Smith 2006). Popper’s approach allows for scientific progress. A premise which puts the truth of a theory subject to falsification rather than confirmation implies that the theory will never be in stasis because it will forever be constantly challenged. Scientists will be constantly on the lookout for new theories that will disprove it. The advantages of Popper’s Falsification Theory are that it allows the uncovering, mostly by chance, of other theories that were originally meant to disprove the original theory. In the course of these constant and persistent attempts to falsify a theory, new theories will emerge, perhaps by accident. For example, Scientist D is trying to prove that the theory “All women are beautiful” is false. In the course of his test however, he discovered that although he is not able to falsify the original theory, he stumbled upon the theory that “One-half of all women are tall” which seemed to him a valid theory and which he cannot, so far, falsify either. Another offshoot of Popper’s approach is to allow the emergence of new theories after an existing theory has been falsified. For example, challenging the same theory “All women are beautiful,” scientist Y is able to finally falsify it by showing that A, M and C are ugly, therefore disproving the theory that all women are beautiful. As a result, the scientific community now searches for a theory or theories that will replace the refuted one. After a thorough search, scientist L comes up with a theory that “All women are industrious” which so far, he and all other scientists have failed to falsify. Of course, this theory like the previous theory will be subjected to a constant falsification challenge, never allowing this theory to remain at rest. In the course of this constant attempt at falsification and using the same theory, new theories may also crop up that extend or explain the existing theory. Thus, scientist A discovered a new theory, which constituted scientific progress. Although he was not able to disprove the theory that “All women are beautiful,” he nevertheless was able to discover that “All women who are beautiful are also intelligent.” In other words, scientist A, in failing to refute the theory was able to extend the original theory. Finally, falsification tests can also bring about the diminishing of an existing theory. Thus, an attempt by scientist E to falsify the same theory “All women are beautiful” may result in his uncovering of another theory that partially falsifies the aforesaid theory. Scientist E may discover that although not all women are beautiful, yet “Half of all women are beautiful.” Thomas Kuhn: “Paradigms” Kuhn saw the progress of science as one that revolves around the idea of cyclical periods of scientific times characterised by a fixed set of values or methods called a paradigm, followed by a period of upheaval or revolution and then a paradigm shift to another fixed set of scientific values. Kuhn termed these periods normal times and crisis science (revolution), respectively. However, before the advent of the paradigms, an initial period called the pre-paradigmatic era occurred, where there are no fixed set of scientific values. The pre-paradigm period is not part of the recurring cycle but only happened during the initial stage. According to Kuhn, a stable scientific period is such because the scientists follow a fixed set of ideas and methods from which all other scientific works are based upon. The paradigm then of a given normal science period of a specific field is the fundamental principle that have been generally acknowledged by scientists in that field as the chief scientific theory governing that period. It is the factor that underlies all other scientific works in the field for that given period. This period, according to Kuhn, is called Normal Science. An example of this is NS3 NS2 Progress Revolutions NS1 Time Fig. 1 Diagrammatic representation of Kuhn’s philosophy of science Skinner’s behaviorist approach in the field of psychology in mid-twentieth century. For a time, Skinner’s theory that the learning process is the same for all species and that learning is a result of reinforcement – a thing is learned if it has good consequences and rejected if not – is the central principle that guided all other psychologists of that time (Godfrey-Smith 2003). There will come a time however, when the Normal Science period will experience an upheaval or a revolution. This will happen when anomalies have accumulated to a critical mass that the scientists being guided by a particular paradigm are beginning to doubt the veracity and the efficacy of that paradigm. An anomaly is a puzzle that cannot be resolved within the paradigm. One or two anomalies are commonplace in a Normal Science but when their number has reached a critical mass, a crisis happens, thus the onset of the Crisis Science (Godfrey-Smith 2003). In the Crisis Science period, the fundamentals are re-examined owing to the loss of faith in the old one. The scientists become open and are in search for new ideas and theories that will take the place of the old one and when that new idea or theory appears on the horizon, a revolution ensues. During the revolution the old paradigm is being displaced with the new paradigm. A successful paradigm shift will finally result in a new Normal Science with the new theory or idea now taking the place of the old one. The new Normal Science will reign for a period until the next crisis and revolution and the eventual change to another paradigm. These paradigms are however, according to Kuhn, incommensurable which means they cannot be compared because, they have no common or standard measures as basis for comparison, which is saying that one cannot declare one paradigm better than another (Godfrey-Smith 2003). Kuhn’s theory of philosophy of science allows for scientific progress in all stages at varying degrees. During Normal Science, scientists constantly carry on puzzle-solving activities. The aim is to expound and enlarge on the paradigm fundamentals. Let us say, for example, that the paradigm in the field of psychology in a given period is the theory that “Insanity is hereditary.” According to Kuhn, even if the values of a given Normal Science is fixed and scientists must religiously follow it, there is still room for scientific progress at this stage because theories may still be formulated that will expound, extend or limit it. Thus, in this example scientists may formulate the theory that “Insanity is hereditary but this genetic factor manifests itself in the third child from the eldest” or “Insanity is hereditary but the manifestation of the gene skips a generation every time.” However, when puzzles which cannot be solved by this paradigm began to accumulate to a critical mass, Kuhn said a crisis will happen. Anomalies occur because scientists never stop solving puzzles until the point comes when the existing fundamentals in the given paradigm are no longer sufficient to resolve a considerable number of puzzles. During this stage, intense scientific progress is more plausible because scientists will be frantically searching for answers and resolutions to the problems. New ideas, theories and methods crop up in an attempt to solve the puzzles that were mot resolved by the paradigm. Scientists are then forced to reevaluate the fundamentals of the paradigm and begin to consider other theories. Thus, scientist I may formulate a new theory that “Insanity is manifested in the offspring of two people who are blood relatives within the fourth civil degree” and scientist N may devise the idea that “Insanity is caused by a virus that attacks people with no immunity to it.” This Crisis Science however becomes more intense when a plausible theory emerges in the horizon. For example, scientist O may devise the theory that “Individuals who have organic defects of the brain develop psychotic personalities” and this idea makes sense to the majority within the scientific community. When a new paradigm emerges and contends with the existing paradigm, a revolution occurs. Thus the old theory that “Insanity is hereditary” becomes passé but not without a fight, which is why Kuhn termed this phase a “revolution.” Stability begins to emerge as the conflict is resolved and a new Normal Science emerges. Scientific progress however, is not envisioned by Kuhn to merely come from the change of paradigms and ideas because he said that scientific knowledge from one paradigm to another is non-cumulative and incommensurable. Thus the factual data gained in the old New Science governed by the paradigm “Insanity is hereditary” cannot be carried over to the New Science governed by the paradigm “Individuals who have organic defects in the brain develop psychotic personalities” because these two paradigms, according to Kuhn are disproportionate. After all, the change from one paradigm to another does not mean that the old paradigm was totally falsified; simply that it became inadequate to explain new phenomena. Therefore, what belonged to the old paradigm – the methodology, for example – stays with it whilst the new paradigm develops its totally new system of methodology. The scientific progress therefore as envisioned by Kuhn, comes from the development of the new methodology which uses more efficient, more modern and highly technological methods and therefore more accurate results than the ones used in the old paradigm. For example, where the old paradigm had simply relied on observations and interviews, the new paradigm may be using high imaging brain scanners that can see the brain structure and its defects clearly. Thus, the methodology becomes more complex involving internal brain structure as well as greater specialisation, probably by one who combines expertise in both the fields of neurology and psychology. This modern methodology, results in more accurate findings and more problems solved. Kuhn likened this kind of scientific progress to Darwin’s evolution which occurs in the natural course of time and which becomes more refined with the passage of time. References Craig, Edward 2000 “Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vol. 5”. Taylor & Francis: 316 Godfrey-Smith, 2003. “Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science” University of Chicago Press: 59, 75-78 Hunt, Shelby D. 2003 “Controversy in Marketing Theories: For Reason, Realism, Truth and Objectivity.” M.E. Sharpe: 87 Parrini, Paolo 1998 “Knowledge and Reality: An Essay in Positive Philosophy.” Springer: 124. Thornton, Stephen. 2005 Karl Popper. “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Sarkar, Sahotra & Pfeiffer, Jessica 2006 “The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia.” Routledge: 751-752 Read More