The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson
Containing His
Articles, Observations, Thoughts, Meanderings,
and some would say Wisdom (and some would say not).
Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn
Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were philosophers of science. Philosophy of Science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. A brief Wikipedia bio of Popper and Kuhn are as follows:
|
Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher and professor. Generally regarded as one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favor of empirical falsification. A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy". In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he came to believe made a flourishing open society possible. His political philosophy embraces ideas from all major democratic political ideologies and attempts to reconcile them, namely socialism/social democracy, libertarianism/classical liberalism and conservatism. |
|
Thomas Samuel Kuhn ( July 18, 1922 – June 17, 1996) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom. Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants. |
The ideas of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have generated much controversy and debate within the scientific community. Indeed, many (if not most) scientists dispute their approach and conclusions on science. In a strict sense, it is probable that Popper and Kuhn are incorrect. Their philosophical science has been shown to have inconsistencies and even logical fallacies, as well as cognitive biases. Like most philosophies, it can be obtuse and dense for non-philosophically educated and inclined persons to understand (for which I include myself).
I am not a supporter nor a critic of the philosophy of Popper or Kuhn. So why do I utilize them in my discussions on science? I utilize them not in a strict sense but in a more general manner. I believe that they may have a general truth as I have stated in my "On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry" article sections “Predictability & Falsifiability in Scientific Theories” and "The Advancement of Science" as summarized below:
Popper on Predictability and Falsifiability:
Inherent in every hypothesis or theory is the property of predictability and falsifiability. Predictability means that a theory or hypothesis can be used to predict what has happened in the past, what is currently happening, and what will happen in the future. Falsifiability means that it is possible that an observation or experiment could be made or done, the results of which could not be accounted for in the hypothesis or theory (see below for more information on predictability and falsifiability). If a hypothesis or theory does not have predictability and/or falsifiability it is not science.
Kuhn on Paradigm Shifts:
In recent history, modern science underwent radical transformation through the development of new theories that were not anticipated or predicted by the tenets of contemporary theories. As such, the advancement of human understanding in the sciences through radical new theories has been coined by Thomas Kuhn as a "paradigm shift.” Examples of such paradigm shifts include the theories of relativity, quantum theory, DNA and molecular biology, and evolution (the evolution of the universe as well as the evolution of life). This is best seen in the difference in Classical Physics vs. Modern Physics.
Predictability and Falsifiability as I utilize it is that every scientific theory has the possibility that a scientific observation and/or experiment can be performed in which the result does not agree with the theory, or the predictions of the theory do not match the observations and/or experiments. Therefore, no scientific theory can be proposed that cannot be tested by observations and/or experiments. Otherwise, the scientific theory is founded upon the belief of the truthfulness of the scientific theory. Belief should not be any basis for science, only observational and/or experimental facts should be the basis for scientific theories. It also requires that a scientific theory have both predictability and falsifiability, as both are necessary to prove the truthfulness of a scientific theory. Remember that a scientific theory is correct if both the observational and/or experimental data does not conflict with the theory, and the predictions of the scientific theory have been proven to be correct.
It should also be noted that just because a scientific theory has been determined through observation or experiment to be incorrect it does not necessarily mean that the scientific theory is false. Scientific theories are often adjusted or fine-tuned based on observation or experimentation. This is a normal developmental process in science and this is good science. When it is no longer possible to adjust or fine-tune a scientific theory to account for the observational or experimental data, or the adjustments or fine tuning becomes excessive or convoluted then it may be necessary to conclude that the scientific theory is false. This often happens when a Paradigm Shift occurs.
Paradigm Shift as I am utilizing it is not based on a generalization of science as Kuhn speculated but on a generalization of scientific theories. I believe that individual scientific theories go through paradigm shifts. A scientific theory is accepted as correct because the observational and/or experimental data does not conflict with the theory, and the predictions of the scientific theory have been proven to be correct. Over time, however, new observations and/or experiments conflict with the theory. The scientific theory is then adjusted to account for these conflicts. However, eventually, the scientific theory cannot be adjusted, or it has become so cumbersome or convoluted that it may be necessary to conclude the theory is false. The scientific theory remains in place as scientists attempt to discover a better theory that accounts for the observations and/or experiments. When a better theory becomes available a paradigm shift occurs and the old theory is displaced by the new theory. Scientists then begin utilizing the new theory as a basis for their scientific research. When this happens the paradigm shift cycle for the new theory starts over. This is what I mean when I discuss a paradigm shift.
I believe that both Kuhn and Popper are correct as a general rule of thumb, but not in a strict sense. Kuhn's Paradigm Shifts occur within a scientific field, while Popper's predictability and falsifiability drive events within the Kuhn Cycle. While both Kuhn's and Popper's ideas are not without (much) criticism, and their are some logical inconsistencies when formally applied, in the general sense I believe they are helpful in the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Science is also inexact, so that any ideas that are postulated from this philosophy are bound to be inexact.
Tangential Issues
Two tangential issues that I believe are important to reiterate in this article are “Mathematics and Science” and “Computer Modeling”. These two issues are having a significant impact on modern science and need to be kept in mind when discussing the Philosophy of Science.
Mathematics and Science
Good science requires good mathematics. But mathematics is abstract while science is naturalistic. As such, mathematics is a contributor to science and not a substitution for science. In today’s science, there has been a movement to substitute mathematical proofs for observational and experimental proofs in some fields of science. This is due to the difficulties in obtaining observational and experimental data due to the very small or very large sizes and/or the very small or very large times to be observed or experimented upon. When this occurs in science we should not abandon observational and experimental proofs but instead categorize the science as speculation awaiting observational or experimental proof. If you substitute mathematical proof then you no longer have science, you have a scientific belief. Remember that just because mathematics says that something is possible does not mean that it has happened, is happening, or may happen. It is just as possible that it has never happened, is not happening, and will never happen.
Computer Modeling
Most scientific endeavors in today’s world utilize Computer Modeling. Therefore, you need to know the issues, concerns, and limitations of Computer Modeling to determine its impact on endeavors. Most importantly you should keep in mind that a computer model is not an answer but a tool – and don’t trust the computer model but utilize the computer model. The computer modeling system itself may contain errors in its programming. The information that goes into the computer model may be incorrect or imprecise, or the interactions between the components may not be known or knowable. And there may simply be too many real-world constants and variables to be computer modeled. Use the computer model as a tool and not an answer, and above all use your common sense when evaluating the computer model. If something in the computer model is suspicious examine it until you understand what is happening. But in all cases never accept a computer model as a proof of science. The proof is in the observations and/or experiments and the predictability and falsifiability of the scientific theory.
Mathematics and Computer Modeling are not a truth of science but only a tool of science.
Please note that I am not interested in debating the correctness of either Peppers’ and Kuhn’s scientific philosophy. I have already noted that they are probably wrong, and I would tend to agree with your criticisms of Popper and Kuhn. I am simply modifying their concepts to correspond with what I believe fits within the nature of scientific inquiry.
Disclaimer
Please Note - many academics, scientist and engineers would critique what I have written here as not accurate nor through. I freely acknowledge that these critiques are correct. It was not my intentions to be accurate or through, as I am not qualified to give an accurate nor through description. My intention was to be understandable to a layperson so that they can grasp the concepts. Academics, scientists, and engineers entire education and training is based on accuracy and thoroughness, and as such, they strive for this accuracy and thoroughness. I believe it is essential for all laypersons to grasp the concepts of this paper, so they make more informed decisions on those areas of human endeavors that deal with this subject. As such, I did not strive for accuracy and thoroughness, only understandability.
Most academics, scientist, and engineers when speaking or writing for the general public (and many science writers as well) strive to be understandable to the general public. However, they often fall short on the understandability because of their commitment to accuracy and thoroughness, as well as some audience awareness factors. Their two biggest problems are accuracy and the audience knowledge of the topic.
Accuracy is a problem because academics, scientist, engineers and science writers are loath to be inaccurate. This is because they want the audience to obtain the correct information, and the possible negative repercussions amongst their colleagues and the scientific community at large if they are inaccurate. However, because modern science is complex this accuracy can, and often, leads to confusion amongst the audience.
The audience knowledge of the topic is important as most modern science is complex, with its own words, terminology, and basic concepts the audience is unfamiliar with, or they misinterpret. The audience becomes confused (even while smiling and lauding the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer), and the audience does not achieve understandability. Many times, the academics, scientists, engineers or science writer utilizes the scientific disciplines own words, terminology, and basic concepts without realizing the audience misinterpretations, or has no comprehension of these items.
It is for this reason that I place understandability as the highest priority in my writing, and I am willing to sacrifice accuracy and thoroughness to achieve understandability. There are many books, websites, and videos available that are more accurate and through. The subchapter on “Further Readings” also contains books on various subjects that can provide more accurate and thorough information. I leave it to the reader to decide if they want more accurate or through information and to seek out these books, websites, and videos for this information.
If you have any comments, concerns, critiques, or suggestions I can be reached at mwd@profitpages.com.
I will review reasoned and intellectual correspondence, and it is possible that I can change my mind,
or at least update the content of this article.