What do you think of this idea? do you agree or disagree please answer in full s

Question

What do you think of this idea? do you agree or disagree please answer in full sentences.

1. Personally I do find Poppers approach to validating scientific practices as reasonable. When Popper claims "Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory--an event which would have refuted the theory, " it makes me think about the medical field and all of the research and testing or falsification going on when looking for new medicinal alternatives. Poppers approach at validating scientific practices is trying to eliminate all possibilities of phony or fraudulent science. I do think it can be applied in all branches of science, however it must be carefully considered throughout all branches. It looks to point out the truth and only the truth, which in my opinion is something science is really all about no matter what branch. I did not change my mind about inductive reasoning, and i still see it as a more broad approach to observing science, which may not gather all the facts and only the facts. I do think psychoanalysis is science, any topic that seeks methods and approaches to better understand something is science in my opinion. The fact that psychologist can observe the outcomes of their different therapies used to treat mental disorders and use that information to make future decisions, allows for it to be a scientific field. Much of the psychology fields, if not all of them would be considered a type of science to me. I do think Poppers falsification theory limits what we can consider science, however i think his theory does it in a positive manner. Poppers theory seeks to eliminate all false information within a scientific observation.

Explanation / Answer

There is no doubt that Karl popper was one of the greatest science philosophere of 20th century. However, here the author is analysing the falsification theory of Popper with respect to psychology and then generalising it and finds credibility in the theory. I agree with this idea. Though inductivism is much valid even now after it was proposed four centuries ago, this new theory adds on to it to eliminate much of the phony science. Though Popper's theory is criticised for the lack of considerations towards inductivism, in this paragraph, the author tries amalgamate and give credibility to both the ideas and hence proves more prudent than limiting to one philosophy. In the present circumstances when numerous claims are made in the name of science, it is important to be selective in waht we consider is the right philosophy of science and adher to it. No matter, if it limits the science as a whole.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse W
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.