Scientific Theories Can Only Ever Be Falsified, Never Confirmed - Assignment Example

Popper suggests that scientific theories can only ever be falsified, never confirmed. Is he right?  There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,  Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.  (Shakespeare, Hamlet, I, v) The word “falsification,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the process “to prove or declare false or “to make false by mutation or addition.” The famous philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper has identified that scientific theories, in general, are subject to falsification, not confirmation. The philosophical works of Sir Karl Popper have influenced all those people, who are interested in understanding the theory of science. He has argued that growth of knowledge is a process and it moves towards betterment with the growth of knowledge about science. Thus, it is clear from such observation that he has actually denied the concept of absolutism in the context of scientific exploration. As since is also a specific field of philosophy; thus, he has felt that the process of scientific method does not follow any kind of methodology; philosophy also does not follow any particular method. He clearly pointed out, “there is a logical asymmetry between confirmation and falsification of a universal generalisatrion.” (Ladyman, 2002, p. 69) Thinking in the same line like that of Popper, it becomes clear that a particular theory can be relevant or applicable for a particular phase but it does not means that it will be universally true. The period aftermath can introduce certain theories, explaining the problem from a different dimension and in a more logical manner. Automatically, implementation of those theories falsifies the earlier one and at the same time contradicts the sense of its universal confirmation. In his process of philosophizing over the methodologies of scientific exploration he has clearly mentioned, “…since the autumn 1919… I first began to grapple with the problem, “When should a theory be ranked as scientific?” Or “Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?” The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, “When is a theory true?” nor “When a theory is acceptable?” my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between since and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth.” (Popper, n.d.) Looking at the process of evolution and development in the field of scientific experimentation, we find that there are numerous such examples that justify Popper’s argument. At the same time it is also clear that Popper’s observation is not only exploring a new horizon in the field of philosophy of science but at the same time it also provides a great deal of focus, related to common psychology, regarding such construction and deconstruction about the acceptance of such theories.       What is the purpose of science? Being one of the major disciplines of philosophy, like all the other disciplines like history, psychology and anthropology, science also aims at exploring the truth in its own ways. Philosophers from different disciplines of life have often argued though Truth is One but there are different ways of approaching it, which can be termed as the allotropy of Truth. There are several incidents that are happening around us, both at physical as well as metaphysical level. It can be said that the main purpose of science is to explore the logic that is active behind occurrence of all these incidents. In this context Lee Strobel’s reflection over the purpose of science becomes very relevant, “I do hear occasional complaints that science needs to pretend that everything works by natural law and that intelligent design is ‘giving up’…. The purpose of science, it seems to me, is to find out how things got here and how they work. Science should be the search for truth, not merely the search for materialistic explanations.” (Strobel, 1994, p.216) Materialistic explanation actually means in this context is to search for the explanation that would only illustrate the occurrences, which can be perceived by our senses only and very often the focus over psychological process or reflection is denied. The main purpose of science is to explore different dimensions that are associated with the occurrence of a particular incident. Invention of scientific theories has happened with the close observation of the incidents that are occurring around us. A scientific or logical mind is always ready to analyze beyond the dimension that he sees or perceives and this process of analysis not only contains scientific experimentation but at the same time he philosophizes over that particular incident and attempts to explore the possible factors that can play important part behind occurrence of such incident/s. (Balashov and Rosenberg, 2002)There is a common psychological conception that scientific experimentations are mostly important or formulation of a particular theory. It cannot be denied that experiments play a leading part in the development of a particular theoretical approach but at the same time it is also needs to be understood that scientific experimentations do not receive a systematic approach unless a scientist is actually identifying the possible ways of exploring the possible factors that would lead to lead to the happening of the incident.       In this context, the importance of philosophizing is realized. Once a scientist attempts to explore the actual reason for happening of a particular incident, he needs to identify primarily the possible ways that may lead to the happening of the incident. Thus, in a very precise manner it can be said that philosophizing over the arena of scientific paradigm can be generally termed as the philosophy of science. (Newton-Smith, 1899, p.2) May be such process of philosophizing cannot be compared to the classical ways of philosophical cultivation but at the same time the theme of exploration remains the same. (Rosenberg, 2005, p.2) Once he is able to identify the possible avenues, it becomes easier for him to reach or explore his goal. The philosophy of science received a more concrete form with the aim of exploring such goals. In this context Pooper’s observation can be referred as an explanation that to which extent he has actually provided importance to the process of philosophy of science and how it has taken such an important form in the development of his philosophical ideas about the issues that are occurring around or drawing his attention, “It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, "What is wrong with Marxism, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton's theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?"” (Popper, n.d.) Thus, Popper was not restricting his observation only to the level that he has come across during the course of his study but at the same time he was actually looking beyond the dimension and comparing as well as contrasting the existing theories with the propositions that he developed by himself while he was actually dealing with the theories in a respective manner. Popper has suggested while he claimed that scientific theories are subjects of falsification and those are never confirmed, he actually stressed over this cultivating or philosophizing faculty of a human mind. Occurrence of an incident means that several aspects are associated with that event. While a theory is propounded it does not cover all the perspectives but focus over some limited numbers that play the most important part in the happening of that incident. It is trough the process of cultivation or philosophizing that a person comes to know about the other aspects that are also associated with the occurrence of such an incident. It has often been observed that putting adequate focus over such incidents that have not received much attention during the time, when the theory was actually formulated; reveal other dimensions of that particular incident. At the same time attention over those aspects often reveal such dimension that opens up the scope to interpret the whole matter from a new perspective and such new way of interpretation actually provides such a way that makes the process of understanding that event simpler.       People, who are scholars in this field, are of opinion that it is always better to start the process of philosophizing or cultivation by focusing over older ideas at first and then come to the present form of interpretation. While explaining, it has often been suggested by the philosophers of science, “One reason is that the historical development of general ideas about science is itself an interesting topic. Another reason is that the philosophy of science has been in a state of fermentation and uncertainty in the recent years. A god way to understand the maze of options and opinions in the field at the moment is to trace the path that brought us to the state we’re in now.” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p.1) In order to understand the chronological process completely one is under the need to understand the complete discourse of the philosophy of science and more knowledge over this matter can only be gained if a person keeps on questioning about the whole process that has happened all these days. It is through the process of questioning that a person will be able to understand the philosophy of science in the proper manner. Every time a relevant question is asked, it takes the scientist to achieve his goal. On one hand he questions the conventional theoretical approach and on the other hand, through his process of questioning he actually approaches to break the conceptions that are related to the process of theorization. In order to accomplish the task perfectly a person is required to have certain psychological aspects, among which the most important is open-mindedness and capacity to understand the subject in such a manner that he can interpret the conventional ideas in a new way. Popper has specified in this context, “Philosophers should not be specialists. For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man’s knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in the riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from the obscurantist faith in the expert’s special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority.” (Popper; Boyd, 1993, p.121)       It is due to such liberalistic approach about science that Karl Popper’s observation received such a great deal of appreciation from the modern students of philosophy of science. The main appeal of Popper’s approach lies in the fact that while developing his theories he has always focused over some of the simplest aspects regarding scientific development. “The logical positivists developed their theories of science as part of a general theory of language, meaning and knowledge. Popper was not much interested in these broader topics, at least initially; his primary aim was to understand science. As his first order of business, he wanted to understand the difference between scientific theories and non-scientific theories. In particular he wanted to distinguish science from pseudo-science.” (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, p.58) According to Popper once the process of demarcation between science and pseudo-science is done properly, it becomes easy for a person to develop his own approach while philosophizing about the issue of concern. The main reason for which Popper has provided so much of importance over the process of distinction is that his main purpose was to make the job easy for the researchers or philosophers of science that they can provide complete focus over the actual scientific issues rather than pseudo-sciences.   Theoretically it is quite difficult to distinguish between these two types of science and even if an attempt is made, it becomes quite tough for a person to realize the points of difference. It is due to this reason Popper has distinguished between these two disciplines through examples. He has regarded the works of Einstein as examples of pure science while for him the theories of Marx or Freud’s psycho analysis are instances of pseudo-science. What is the main reason behind such observation? If we ponder of Einstein’s theories we will understand that with the progress of time though there has been further incorporation over such theories but at the same time the main logical approach of those theories has remained unchanged. These theories have always acted as the main foundation for further development and innovations in those fields have occurred as the results of Einstein’s works are undisputed. On the other hand if we focus over the theories of Marx or Freud, we find a completely different picture. Marx’s theories are mainly based over the conception of social development. The time, when Marx developed his theories, he actually focused over the contemporary social context and in addition to it he also commented over some of the basic humane virtues that would remain unchanged in other ages. In this context Marx’s theories are of universal in nature but with the change in society it has also become clear that the original theories require further addition and such additions must be done either at the basic level of principle of those theories or the approach of the theories have been changed completely in order to keep a semblance with the social change. Thus, in the context of pseudo sciences Popper’s observation fits perfectly that such scientific theories are falsified and never confirmed.       During the time of developing a theory, the theorist actually talk about an ideal situation but when it comes to the application in the practical field, we see that there are several disputes. Such conflict between ideal and realism constitutes a great part in the field of philosophy of science. According to Plato, “ideal” means the optimum level of perfection, starting from microcosmic to macrocosmic human existence. In an ideal situation, Plato has suggested that a person is required to understand the meaning of freedom at the first place and then depending over such task he must do the assignments that he has been provided with. An ideal society is such a place where, “Every man is best served by being governed by the divine and the rational – at its best when a man has this as part of himself; if not, it must be imposed by some external power.” (Plato; Johansen, Rosenmeier and Friis, 1998, p.200) It is the gap between ideal and the reality that the theories of pseudo science are often falsified with the change of time but the real theories f science remains the same. These theories are not dynamic and due to this reason they do not have to capacity to cover the dynamic nature of the human beings that change with the change in different social-political-cultural aspects. It has often been argued that Marxism is one of the most effective philosophical approach that can explain different types of socio-economic affairs and it is due to this reason since the 20th century onwards Marxism has been provided with a great deal of attention in the context of understanding different aspects of the society, “Marxism comprises a methodological approach to the perception and understanding of phenomena, a scientific study of the society, a philosophy of history, a history of economic behavior (especially that of the capitalist system), and a concept of political power.” (Curtis, 1997, p.1) It was the pervasive nature of the Marxism that in the contemporary society it included and had the capacity of explaining all the diverse aspects. However, looking at the modern condition we see that Neo Marxism has already been included with the original form of Marxism. “Neo Marxist embraces several diverse views, ranging from the effort to interpret Marx’ thought in a Hegelian light, which is rather modernist neo –Marxism, to Marxism-Leninism, and to the New Left of the sixties and seventies, which are, or may be, postmodernism.” (Angel, 1994, p.22) It is clear from such observation that Marxism exhibited certain limitations and due to this reason it has become important so that the theories can be explained under the light of postmodern context. The kind of confirmation that Marxism provided in the earlier years of its discourse, in the later part, with the progress of the society it became incapable of explaining those theories through its original philosophical perspective. It is due to this reason that several modern scholars of Marxism developed the original theory of Marx in such a manner that it can explain the modern social phenomenon. Going by Popper’s observation, thus, it can be confirmed that Marxism is subject to falsification in this context. Several of Marx’s original approaches were proved to be wrong by the neo Marxists and they included their own theoretical approaches to make Marxism more effective.       In the same manner, the distinction between scholars belonging to Freudian and neo Freudian approaches proved to be different. Freud in his original theory of psychoanalysis has attempted to prove that sexual impulses of human beings are the main reasons for the human actions. ‘Id’ according to him plays the main role in determining the diverse range of human behavioral approaches. Apart from the ‘Id’ both the factors of ‘eros’ and ‘thanatos’ also play importance roles in determining the basic character of a person. According to the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis, people are actually driven by sexual impulses and in the terms of sexual or basic requirements of a human being it is possible to have a complete idea about his behaviorist approaches. However, such observation proved to be limited as the society changed in the post World War II era and according to the social change, the pattern of thinking of people also changed. Diverse types of social, political and economic developments happened all over the world that took a leading part in the development of a person’s psychological aspects. Freud’s original theory did not comprise all those elements that can explain such change at the behaviorist level of the human beings in the post modern society. Moreover, there has been a great flaw in Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis. He provided minimum importance to the factor of human emotion, which definitely plays one of the greatest parts in determining psychological nature of a person. Thus, all those actions, which happen due to change at the emotional level, Freud’s theory of psycho analysis, could not explain that in a proper way. Several Neo Freudians, namely, Alfred Adler, Erik Erikson and Harry Stack Sullivan have made considerable change in the original Freudian theoretical discourse. “Among the entire gamut of the emotions, the Neo Freudians focus on love as the most important….The Neo Freudian concept of love, as a mutual concern for the security and maturation of self-systems, is more than an adequate replacement for the questionable entity, libido, in explaining social cohesion….It could well be argued that Neo Freudian understanding of love, bereft of a theory of libido, paradoxically comes closer to the broad Freudian concept of Eros than does Eros plus sexuality. This is not to say that the Neo-Freudians deprecate the value of sexuality.” (Birnbach, 1961, p.217) Freud has provided huge importance to dreams and their interpretations but post Freudians cited for an anagogic connection between dreams. They have opined that such connection would be able to explain the construction of ego factor at the psychological level of a human being. (Shafton, 1995, p.242) Due to the novel inclusions from the neo Freudians, people it has become easier to receive a better idea about mass psychology. Freud’ theory was capable of providing adequate understanding about an individual only, whereas neo Freudian approach covers a vaster arena as there are differences between “reception of psychoanalysis by sociology and anthropology.” (Marmor, 1995, p.599) In the modern world, the sociological aspect of gender differentiation has played a major role in orienting the psychological conception of a modern man towards the opposite sex. The neo Freudians have also dealt with the unconscious processes that are responsible for developing different personalities in a human being and at the same time, it also explains the reasons for gender differentiation. (Turner, 2006, p.620) In this context Neo Freudian approach can be regarded as more superior that that of the core theory of Freud.       Freud’s approach cannot be denied when it comes to the explanation of actual nature of a human being. Despite several limitations of his theories, he actually, for the first time, logically proved that a human being comprises different selves or entities. Since the initial time of the Renaissance humanism focus over different selves of a human being was increasing but no one before Freud could have proved in such a logical and concrete manner that people are actually different in nature and it is due to the difference at psychological level, that actions of every human being is so different from the others. Freud’s theory is widely considered by the students of psychology as one of the most important scientific approach that aimed at the solving the confusions related to the human nature. Popper’s objection, however, lies in this context and he referred to Freudian theory of psychoanalysis as the pseudo science not the actual form of science as it has dealt with any such issues that is related to the scientific exploration or explain any secret of the universal phenomenon. Both Marxism and Freudian approach has actually reflected over the condition of humanity and social existence that can be related to social science but not with the proper scientific approach. Though these theories are propounded by following scientific and methodological approach but such theories are finally falsified because it is not possible to sum up all the aspects of the issues that they are dealing with. Popper’s observation seems to be correct once we identify the theories of Marx and Freud as pseudo-science and the theories are never confirmed due to ever changing nature of the elements, upon which these theories are dependent.    Works Cited: 1. Birnbach, M. (1961), Neo-Freudian Social Philosophy, Stanford University Press 2. Curtis, M. (1997), Marxism: the inner dialogues, Transaction Publishers 3. Angel, L. (1994), Enlightenment East and West, SUNY Press 4. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1899), Companion To The Philosophy Of Science, Wiley-Blackwell 5. Rosenberg, A. (2005), Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction, Routledge 6. Ladyman, J. (2002), Understanding philosophy of science, Routledge 7. Balashov, Y., Rosenberg, A. (2002), Philosophy of science: contemporary readings, Routledge 8. Boyd, R. (1993), The Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, 1993 9. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003), Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science, University of Chicago Press, 2003 10. Shakespeare, W. (n.d.), Hamlet, available at: http://www.online-literature.com/shakespeare/hamlet/6/, retrieved on: 20th May, 2009 11. Popper, K. (n.d.), Science as Falsification, available at:, http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html, retrieved on: 20th May, 2009 12. Strobel, L. (2004), The case for a Creator: a journalist investigates scientific evidence that points toward God, Zondervan 13. Rosenmeier, H., Johansen, K. and Friis, A (1998) History of Ancient Philosophy: From the Beginnings to Augustine, Routledge 14. Shafton, A. (1995), Dream reader: contemporary approaches to the understanding of dreams, SUNY Press 15. Marmor, J. (1995), Modern Psychoanalysis: New Directions & Perspectives, Transaction Publishers 16. Turner, J. H. (2006), Handbook of Sociological Theory, Springer Read More