Sir Karl Poppers Falsifiability Claim :: Sir Karl Popper Science Essays

Sir Karl Poppers Falsifiability Claim Poppers consider that the criterion of the scientific status of a possibility is its falsifiability (Klemke, 1988) whitethorn be viewed as an observation of, rather than a complete departure from, preceding criteria for science. Klemke states in his introduction to part one (p. 16) that defining science (or the scientific method) has traditionally consisted of utilizing seven criteria that must be met in a specific order. Criteria number (5) and (6) refer to deduction rather than induction, and will negate criterion (4) if non met. Specifically, if one is unable to deduce other statements from these, or one is unable to verify those statements by further observations, it is not science. Therefore, the difference between Poppers claim and earlier theories of what constitutes science may be in definition. Popper himself states (Klemke, 1988, p.27) that observations are interpretations relative to the possibility one wishes to support (or refute ). One must define ones terms so that the theory itself is clear and open to rebuttal or verification. Perhaps the conflict between the earlier criteria for science and Poppers criterion is one of clarity, not theory. Although traditional theory on what science consists of is viewed as inductive, it appears that at least some of the criteria are, in fact, deductive. Criterion (5) explicitly refers to deduction, and criterion (6) refers to verification of said deduction(s). It would seem that Poppers conflict with accepted theory may be relative to traditional criteria (1)- making observations as accurate and definite as possible. If one approaches the criteria for science previously regarded to be inductive as deductive (since it is not science without all seven criteria being met), perhaps Poppers own claim (that in order to be scientific a claim must be falsifiable) is a test of the previous theory. Accordingly, if one approaches Poppers claim as an attempt to falsify the previous theory of the criteria for science, one may utter his theory somewhat differently. In Poppers own words (Klemke, p.27), ... we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new tell apart without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it.. Popper rejects induction as the method of science and offers an alternative method - deduction. Using Poppers falsifiability criterion, the usual theory of science as inductive has been rebutted. Poppers observation and testing of induction as a criterion for science has suggested a new criterion.