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:

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.

Karl Popper Quotes:

“All life is problem solving”
 - Karl Popper

“Every intellectual has a very special responsibility. He has the privilege and the opportunity of studying. In return, he owes it to his fellow men (or 'to society') to represent the results of his study as simply, clearly and modestly as he can. The worst thing that intellectuals can do - the cardinal sin - is to try to set themselves up as great prophets vis-à-vis their fellow men and to impress them with puzzling philosophies. Anyone who cannot speak simply and clearly should say nothing and continue to work until he can do so.”
 - Karl Popper

“Every solution of a problem raises new unsolved problems.”
 - Karl Popper

“If we wish our civilization to survive we must break with the habit of deference to great men.”
 - Karl Popper

“If you can't say it simply and clearly, keep quiet, and keep working on it till you can.”
 - Karl Popper

“Ignorance is not a simple lack of knowledge but an active aversion to knowledge, the refusal to know, issuing from cowardice, pride, or laziness of mind.”
 - Karl Popper

“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
 - Karl Popper

“No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.”
 - Karl Popper

“Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”
 - Karl Popper

“The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.”
 - Karl Popper

“The only way to test a hypothesis is to look for all the information that disagrees with it.”
 - Karl Popper

“The war of ideas is a Greek invention. It is one of the most important inventions ever made. Indeed, the possibility of fighting with with words and ideas instead of fighting with swords is the very basis of our civilization, and especially of all its legal and parliamentary institutions.”
 - Karl Popper

“True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.”
 - Karl Popper

“We do not know. We can only guess.”
 - Karl Popper

“Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.”
 - Karl Popper

Thomas Kuhn Quotes:

“All crises begin with the blurring of a paradigm and the consequent loosening of the rules for normal research. Or finally, the case that will most concern us here, a crisis may end with the emergence of a new candidate for paradigm and with the ensuing battle over its acceptance.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“All significant breakthroughs are break -“withs” old ways of thinking.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Every important idea in science sounds strange at first.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Far from being magisterial in its objectivity, science was conditioned by history, society, and the prejudices of scientists.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“In science, novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Individuals who break through by inventing a new paradigm are almost always either very young men or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. These are the men who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and conceive another set that can replace them.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend most all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. Normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Philosophers of science have repeatedly demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be placed upon a given collection of data.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Probably, the single most prevalent claim advanced by the proponents of a new paradigm is that they can solve the problems that led the old one to a crisis.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Rather than being an interpreter, the scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing inverting lenses.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“The answers you get depend upon the questions you ask.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgment leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“The historian of science may be tempted to claim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. even more important, during revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong... There is no other effective way in which discoveries might be generated.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“The transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“Under normal conditions the research scientist is not an innovator but a solver of puzzles, and the puzzles upon which he concentrates are just those which he believes can be both stated and solved within the existing scientific tradition.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

“We see the world in terms of our theories.”
 - Thomas Kuhn

Disclaimer

Please note that my Science Articles disclaimer applies to this article, as it does to all of my science articles. These science articles are for the purposes of general scientific information that is understandable to a layperson, so that they can grasp the concepts of the topic being discussed. As such, they are neither as accurate nor as thorough as academics, scientists, engineers, and science writers strive to achieve. My hope is that these science articles will be informative and interesting, and that they will pique the reader's interest in exploring these topics in further detail via the hyperlinks that I have embedded into these articles.