Thursday, August 30, 2012

Summer Assignment Two

Bios,
Hey all of you! Post your comments to the first summer assignment. That is how you turn in your work and get credit. As I write this, only three have responded to the first assignment.

This week we wrap-up our look at the nature of science with another classic in the philosophy of science cannon, “Science: Conjectures and Refutations” by Karl Popper. This essay is meaty so take your time to digest what it has to offer.

But first, some vocabulary -

1. Induction: inferring a general conclusion or principle from particular instances (from specific to general). The theory of plate tectonics (general principle) is inferred from many individual evidences (specifics).
2. Deduction: inference in which the conclusion about particulars follows from general principle (from general to specific). Sherlock Holms used deduction. Fingerprints are unique to the individual (general principle) so if the suspect’s fingerprints are on the knife, he held the knife (specific).
3. Demarcation: to set apart, distinguish

Distinguishing science from pseudo-science:
Finding truth through science is an empirical process based on inductive reasoning. It is different from other “truth” finding activities such as astrology and tarot card reading, which are based on other principles. While induction does result in new knowledge it comes at a cost. The cost is that science is tentative and subject to revision. Due to the nature of science, two philosophical problems arise. The first problem is distinguishing science from pseudo-science also known as the problem of demarcation. For example, what makes astronomy science yet astrology not? The second problem is the logical problem of induction. In other words how can science find truth if it is always tentative and subject to revision? You will find that being tentative - subject to revision is the strength of science!

The philosopher, Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) addressed these problems in the essay you are about to read. In the essay he first distinguishes science from pseudo-science by solving the problem of demarcation. He then explores the logical problem of induction and concludes that it and the problem of demarcation are the same. The ideas presented in this essay likely are new to you. Your understanding will require careful attention to the essay, thoughtful responses to the questions, and careful discussion with your instructor. There are two primary objectives for this activity. First, you will learn what separates science from pseudo-science. Second, will be to understand how we can know a theory is true even if it is tentative and subject to revision.

My hope is that after reading these two essays you begin to appreciate the dimensions of science. As you have already discovered, science is not just doing experiments. It is much more – a grand achievement of the human mind that is capable of understanding the universe in which we live.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy Popper’s essay you will find the questions at the end of the essay.

See you in class. I am looking forward to meeting you.

Mr. Baker

Karl Popper - Science: Conjectures and Refutations

Mr. Turnbull had predicted evil consequences, . . . and was now doing the best in his power to bring about the verification of his own prophecies. Anthony Trollope

When I received the list of participants in this course and realized that I had been asked to speak to philosophical colleagues I thought, after some hesitation and consultation that you would probably prefer me to speak about those problems which interest me most, and about those developments with which I am most intimately acquainted. I therefore decided to do what I have never done before: to give you a report on my own work in the philosophy of science, since the autumn of 1919 when 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 is a theory acceptable?" My problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth.

I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudo-science or from "metaphysics" by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even a pseudo-empirica1 method-that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards. The latter method may be exemplified by astrology with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation-on horoscopes and on biographies.

But as it was not the example of astrology which led me to my problem I should perhaps briefly describe the atmosphere in which my problem arose and the examples by which it was stimulated. After the collapse of the Austrian Empire there had been a revolution in Austria: the air was full of revolutionary slogans and ideas, and new and often wild theories. Among the theories which interested me Einstein's theory of relativity was no doubt by far the most important. Three others were Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler's so-called "individual psychology."

There was a lot of popular nonsense talked about these theories, and especially about relativity (as still happens even today), but I was fortunate in those who introduced me to the study of this theory. We all-the small circle of students to which I belonged-were thrilled with the result of Eddington's eclipse observations which in 1919 brought the first important confirmation of Einstein's theory of gravitation. It was a great experience for us, and one which had a lasting influence on my intellectual development.

The three other theories I have mentioned were also widely discussed among students at that time. I myself happened to come into personal contact with Alfred Adler, and even to co-operate with him in his social work among the children and young people in the working-class districts of Vienna where he had established social guidance clinics.

It was during the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories-the Marxist theory of history, psychoanalysis, 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?"

To make this contrast clear I should explain that few of us at the time would have said that we believed in the truth of Einstein's theory of gravitation. This shows that it was not my doubting the truth of those other three theories which bothered me, but something else. Yet neither was it that I merely felt mathematical physics to be more exact than the sociological or psychological type of theory. Thus what worried me was neither the problem of truth, at that stage at least, nor the problem of exactness or measurability. It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as sciences, had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analysed" and crying aloud for treatment.

The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasized by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation-which revealed the class bias of the paper-and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their "clinical observations." As for Adler, I was much impressed by a personal experience. Once, in 1919, 1 reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold."

What I had in mind was that his previous observations may not have been much sounder than this new one; that each in its turn had been interpreted in the light of "previous experience," and at the same time counted as additional confirmation. What, I asked myself, did it confirm? No more than that a case could be interpreted in the light of the theory. But this meant very little, I reflected, since every conceivable case could be interpreted in the light of Adler's theory, or equally of Freud's. I may illustrate this by two very different examples of human behaviour: that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child. Each of these two cases can be explained with equal ease in Freudian and in Adlerian terms. According to Freud the first man suffered from repression (say, of some component of his Oedipus complex), while the second man had achieved sublimation. According to Adler the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing perhaps the need to prove to himself that he dared to commit some crime), and so did the second man (whose need was to prove to himself that he dared to rescue the child). I could not think of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory. It was precisely this fact-that they always fitted, that they were always confirmed-which in the eyes of their admirers constituted the strongest argument in favour of these theories. It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.

With Einstein's theory the situation was strikingly different. Take one typical instance-Einstein's prediction, just then confirmed by the findings of Eddington's expedition. Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the result that light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun), precisely as material bodies were attracted. As a consequence it could be calculated that light from a distant fixed star whose apparent position was close to the sun would reach the earth from such a direction that the star would seem to be slightly shifted away from the sun; or, in other words, that stars close to the sun would look as if they had moved a little away from the sun, and from one another. This is a thing which cannot normally be observed since such stars are rendered invisible in daytime by the sun's overwhelming brightness; but during an eclipse it is possible to take photographs of them. If the same constellation is photographed at night one can measure the distances on the two photographs, and check the predicted effect.

Now the impressive thing about this case is the risk involved in a prediction of this kind. If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation-in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question were compatible with the most divergent human behaviour, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behaviour that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.

(1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations.

(2) 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.

(3) Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.

(4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice.

(5) Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability; some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

(6) Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")

(7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

II

I may perhaps exemplify this with the help of the various theories so far mentioned. Einstein's theory of gravitation clearly satisfied the criterion of falsifiability. Even if our measuring instruments at the time did not allow us to pronounce on the results of the tests with complete assurance, there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.

Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence_so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavourable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophecies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophecies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.

The Marxist theory of history, in spite of the serious efforts of some of its founders and followers, ultimately adopted this soothsaying practice. In some of its earlier formulations (for example in Marx's analysis of the character of the "coming social evolution') their predictions were testable, and in fact falsified.2 Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx reinterpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree. In this way they rescued the theory from refutation; but they did so at the price of adopting a device which made it irrefutable. They thus gave a "conventionalist twist" to the theory; and by this stratagem they destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status.

The two psycho-analytic theories were in a different class. They were simply non-testable, irrefutable. There was no conceivable human behaviour which could contradict them. This does not mean that Freud and Adler were not seeing certain things correctly: I personally do not doubt that much of what they say is of considerable importance, and may well play its part one day in a psychological science which is testable. But it does mean that those "clinical observations" which analysts naively believe confirm their theory cannot do this any more than the daily confirmations which astrologers find in their practice.3 And as for Freud's epic of the Ego, the Super-ego, and the Id, no substantially stronger claim to scientific status can be made for it than for Homer's collected stories from Olympus. These theories describe some facts, but in the manner of myths. They contain most interesting psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form.

At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all-or very nearly all-scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense-although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation."

(There were a great many other theories of this pre-scientific or pseudoscientific character, some of them, unfortunately, as influential as the Marxist interpretation of history; for example, the racialist interpretation of history-another of those impressive and all-explanatory theories which act upon weak minds like revelations.)

Thus the problem which I tried to solve by proposing the criterion of falsifiability was neither a problem of meaningfulness or significance, nor a problem of truth or acceptability. It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, of the empirical sciences, and all other statements-whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific. Years later-it must have been in 1928 or 1929-I called this first problem of mine the "problem of demarcation. " The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations....

III

Let us now turn from our logical criticism of the psychology of experience to our real problem-the problem of the logic of science. Although some of the things I have said may help us here, in so far as they may have eliminated certain psychological prejudices in favour of induction, my treatment of the logical problem of induction is completely independent of this criticism, and of all psychological considerations. Provided you do not dogmatically believe in the alleged psychological fact that we make inductions, you may now forget my whole story with the exception of two logical points: my logical remarks on testability or falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation; and Hume's logical criticism of induction.

From what I have said it is obvious that there was a close link between the two problems which interested me at that time: demarcation, and induction or scientific method. It was easy to see that the method of science is criticism, i.e. attempted falsifications. Yet it took me a few years to notice that the two problems-of demarcation and of induction-were in a sense one....

I recently came across an interesting formulation of this belief in a remarkable philosophical book by a great physicist-Max Born's Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance.5 He writes: "Induction allows us to generalize a number of observations into a general rule: that night follows day and day follows night . . . But while everyday life has no definite criterion for the validity of an induction, . . .science has worked out a code, or rule of craft, for its application." Born nowhere reveals the contents of this inductive code (which, as his wording shows, contains a "definite criterion for the validity of an induction"); but he stresses that "there is no logical argument" for its acceptance: "it is a question of faith"; and he is therefore "willing to call induction a metaphysical principle." But why does he believe that such a code of valid inductive rules must exist? This becomes clear when he speaks of the "vast communities of people ignorant of, or rejecting, the rule of science, among them the members of anti-vaccination societies and believers in astrology. It is useless to argue with them; I cannot compel them to accept the same criteria of valid induction in which I believe: the code of scientific rules." This makes it quite clear that "valid induction" was here meant to serve as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science.

But it is obvious that this rule or craft of "valid induction" is not even metaphysical: it simply does not exist. No rule can ever guarantee that a generalization inferred from true observations, however often repeated, is true.(Born himself does not believe in the truth of Newtonian physics, in spite of its success, although he believes that it is based on induction.) And the success of science is not based upon rules of induction, but depends upon luck, ingenuity, and the purely deductive rules of critical argument.

I may summarize some of my conclusions as follows:

(1) Induction, i.e. inference based on many observations, is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact, nor a fact of ordinary life, nor one of scientific procedure.

(2) The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures: to jump to conclusions-often after one single observation (as noticed for example by Hume and Born).

(3) Repeated observations and experiments function in science as tests of our
conjectures or hypotheses, i.e. as attempted refutations.

(4) The mistaken belief in induction is fortified by the need for a criterion of demarcation which, it is traditionally but wrongly believed, only the inductive method can provide.

(5) The conception of such an inductive method, like the criterion of verifiability, implies a faulty demarcation.

(6) None of this is altered in the least if we say that induction makes theories only probable rather than certain.

IV

If, as I have suggested, the problem of induction is only an instance or facet of the problem of demarcation, then the solution to the problem of demarcation must provide us with a solution to the problem of induction. This is indeed the case, I believe, although it is perhaps not immediately obvious.

For a brief formulation of the problem of induction we can turn again to Born, who writes: ". . . no observation or experiment, however extended can give more than a finite number of repetitions"; therefore, "the statement of a law-B depends on A-always transcends experience. Yet this kind of statement is made everywhere and all the time, and sometimes from scanty material.'

In other words, the logical problem of induction arises from (a) Hume's discovery (so well expressed by Born) that it is impossible to justify a law by observation or experiment, since it "transcends experience"; (b) the fact that science proposes and uses laws "everywhere and all the time." (Like Hume, Born is struck by the "scanty material," i.e. the few observed instances upon which the law may be based.) To this we have to add (c) the principle of empiricism which asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including laws and theories.

These three principles, (a), (b), and (c), appear at first sight to clash; and this apparent clash constitutes the logical problem of induction.

Faced with this clash, Born gives up (c), the principle of empiricism (as Kant and may others, including Bertrand Russell, have done before him), in favour of what he calls a "metaphysical principle"; a metaphysical principle which he does not even attempt to formulate; which he vaguely describes as a "code or rule of craft"; and of which I have never seen any formulation which even looked promising and was not clearly untenable.

But in fact the principles (a) to (c) do not clash. We can see this the moment we realize that the acceptance by science of a law or of a theory is tentative only; which is to say that all laws and theories are conjectures, or tentative hypotheses(a position which I have sometimes called "hypotheticism") and that we may reject a law or theory on the basis of new evidence, without necessarily discarding the old evidence which originally led us to accept it.7

The principles of empiricism (c) can be fully preserved, since the fate of a theory, its acceptance or rejection, is decided by observation and experiment_ by the result of tests. So long as a theory stands up to the severest tests we can design, it is accepted; if it does not, it is rejected. But it is never inferred, in any sense, from the empirical evidence. There is neither a psychological nor a logical induction. Only the falsity of the theory can be inferred from empirical evidence, and this inference is a purely deductive one.

Hume showed that it is not possible to infer a theory from observation statements; but this does not affect the possibility of refuting a theory by observation statements. The full appreciation of the possibility makes the relation between theories and observations perfectly clear. This solves the problem of the alleged clash between the principles (a), (b), and(c), and with it Hume's problem of induction....

NOTES
1. This is a slight oversimplification, for about half of the Einstein effect may be derived from the classical theory, provided we assume a ballistic theory of light.
2. See for example, my Open Society and Its Enemies, ch. 15, section iii, and notes 13-14.
3. "Clinical observations," like all other observations, are interpretations in the light of theories; and for this reason alone they are apt to seem to support those theories in the light of which they were interpreted. But real support can be obtained only from observations undertaken as tests (by "attempted refutations"); and for this purpose criteria of refutation have to be laid down beforehand; it must be agreed which observable situations, if actually observed, mean that the theory is refuted. But what kind of clinical responses would refute to the satisfaction of the analyst not merely a particular analytic diagnosis but psycho-analysis itself? And have such criteria ever been discussed or agreed upon by analysts? Is there not, on the contrary, a whole family of analytic concepts, such as "ambivalence" (l do not suggest that there is no such thing as ambivalence), which would make it difficult, if not impossible, to agree upon such criteria? Moreover, how much headway has been made in investigating the question of the extent to which the (conscious or unconscious) expectations and theories held by the analyst influence the "clinical responses" of the patient? To say nothing about the conscious attempts to influence the patient by proposing interpretations to him, etc.) Years ago Iintroduced the term "Oedipus effect" to describe the influence of a theory or expectation or prediction upon the event which it predicts or describes: it will be remembered that the causal chain leading to Oedpus' parricide was started by the oracle's prediction of this event. This is a characteristic and recurrent theme of such myths, but one which seems to have failed to attract the interest of the analysts, perhaps not accidentally. (The problem of confirmatory dreams suggested by the analyst is discussed by Freud, for example in Gesammelte Schriften,i 111, 1925, where he says on p. 314: "If anybody asserts that most of the dreams which can be utilized in an analysis . . . owe their origin to [the analyst's] suggestion, then no objection can be made from the point of view of analytic theory. Yet there is nothing in this fact,"he surprisingly adds, "which would detract from the reliability of our results.']
4. The case of astrology, nowadays a typical pseudo-science, may illustrate this point. It was attacked, by Aristotelians and other rationalists, down to Newton's day, for the wrong reason-for its now an accepted assertion that the planets had an "influence" upon terrestrial ("sublunar") events. In fact Newton's theory of gravity, and especially the lunar theory of the tides, was historically speaking an offpsring of astrological lore. Newton, it seems, was most reluctant to adopt a theory which came from the same stable as for example the theory that "influenza"epidemics are due to an astral "influence." And Galileo, no doubt for the same reason, actually rejected the lunar theory of the tides; and his misgivings about Kepler may easily be explained by his misgivings about astrology.
5. Max Born, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, Oxford, 1949, p. 7.
6. Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance, p. 6.
7. I do not doubt that Born and many others would agree that theories are accepted only tentatively. But the widespread belief in induction shows that the far-reaching implications of this view are rarely seen.
Source: Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963), pp. 33-39, 52-55.

Your Assignment:

1. What makes a theory scientific?
2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
6. What is the logical problem of induction?
7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?

35 comments:

Bianca Llorico said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
What makes a theory scientific is providing empirical evidence that is relative to the based observations of the experiment or scientific laws. Scientific theories are deductive statements that are meant to be critically reasoned to their hypotheses.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Popper’s views on Marx’s, Freud’s and Alder’s theories are not science because their theories are more characterized of the outcomes of human behaviors. Popper presents Freud and Alder’s perspectives of human conduct as he proposes a man who pushes a child with an intention to drown him and the man who sacrifices himself to save the drowning child. He believes Freud would think of this as repression and sublimation while Alder considers this situation to be inferiority. Within the two cases, psycho-analysis and “individual psychology” are controlled by the individual therefore, not considered scientific. These types of theories are more emphasized towards the adherents of that subject rather than universally impacting the law of nature.


3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it was confirmed by Eddington’s expedition, he was able to provide evidence through scientific facts such as light being attracted to heavy bodies and its theory has met the criteria of potential falsifiability and refutation by other scientists.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it protects the theory from refutation only at a price of destroying it or lowering its scientific status. This leads into an issue of a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem,” which allows scientists to still challenge the accuracy of the theory.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
Demarcation is the act of distinguishing two things into different subjects. Throughout Popper’s essay, science and pseudo-science of all sorts were an issue for distinction. The problem of demarcation was solved by the criteria of falsifiability. Statements must be ranked as scientific or capable of conflicting with possible or conceivable observations in order for the act of demarcation to follow up.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that it is a number of observations being generalized into a general rule or a principle. The issue with that is there is absolutely no criterion of validity for these inductions.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
The criterion of a valid induction acquires a scientific rule behind it. Popper states that he “cannot compel the [people] to accept the same criteria of valid induction as [he] does” so there is no further action being taken upon letting people think the same way he does. Because of the absence of criterion for inductions, Popper intends to solve this problem by letting the people believe what they will, as long as the rule of science is applied within the induction.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Within the 3 principles stated towards the logical problems of induction, principles A and C don’t clash. By being tentative in this situation, you are being flexible by acknowledging the present conjectures being made from the 2 situations and you begin keeping track of old evidence that possibly led to the thought patterns of an idea you begin to have (principle B). Later on, as one observes further into an experiment or a principle in this case, they will be able to initiate subject to revision when necessary and even refer back to from hypotheses and ideas that were earlier discarded. Being tentative and subject to revision a strength to science as there will always be different theories that need to be re-tested for further validity and confirmation by other scientists.

Tram Ho said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
In Popper's essay he states that a theory's reputability, falsifiability, and testability makes it scientific. Theories are often altered due to the fact that it can be proven to be flawed, thus more constraints are then added to make a theory more precise. Evidence to falsify theories are often gathered by experiments and/or observations. A theory's capability of being modified makes it scientific because it is a concept that can often change, science is a very complex form of knowledge that can not be pinpointed.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Popper believed that Marx, Freud, and Adler's theories are not scientific because the concepts that were proposed are very biased and inapt to be adjusted or changed. Marx's theory of history, Freud's theory of psycho-analysis, and Adler's theory of "individual psychology" are similar in a way that their theories can basically be applied to any scenario. Observations and evidence are modified to fit their theories rather than modify their theories to correlate with evidence and observations. This can be proven with an example that Popper gave with a man that pushed a girl into the water and a man that jumps into the water to save the girl. According to Marx's theory the first man "suffered from repression" and the second man "achieved sublimation" whereas based on Adler's theory both men "wanted to prove [themselves]" and achieve their personal goal. The same observation was able to prove both of their theories. It did not change the way their theories were viewed or did it show a way for their theories to be falsified.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein's theory of relativity was considered science by Popper because it was a concept that Einstein proposed that was able to be tested and altered. Einstein made a prediction before conducting an experiment so if the evidence gathered did not correlate with his initial hypothesis the theory can be adjusted to be more accurate. Experiments can still be conducted to find any more inaccuracies within the theory.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it terminates a theory by making it no longer refutable. Rather than accepting a contradiction to a theory one will change it so that it can no longer be proven false nor inaccurate. It makes a concept closer to becoming a misconception by not allowing room for revision.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience can be resolved by the basis of falsifiability. A theory would be considered scientific based on it's testability and reputability.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that it allows people to categorize observations into a general concept. When people make generalizations based on their observations it makes an idea not as accurate as testing something for themselves. By inferring it makes a theory more like an assumption and not as valid.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by viewing inductions as a myth. He believes theories to be made by propositions and criticism from other scientists which makes a theory and concept more valid.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
According to Popper being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because it allows a theory to become more accurate. Doing more experiments gives room for trial and errors and being open to revision will make a theory more factual considering the fact that science is full of uncertainty and there will always be new discoveries that will change a conjecture.

Giancarlo Gelicame Jr said...

1) According to Popper “the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” He also went on to say that a theory should only accept confirmation if it was due to a “risky prediction”, and if it is not a refutable theory it is not scientific at all, it’s quite the opposite.

2) Popper finds Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” not scientific because first Popper stated that they “more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy.” He saw that there was just confirmation after another, everywhere there was confirmation to their theory, not from a risky prediction or test. Popper brought up an event that verified two of the theories “that of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child.” This situation proved both the Freudian and Alderian terms. And as Popper compared these theories with Einstein’s theory which could be proven with actual physical evidence and not just human behavior. As Popper stated “the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” which these theories do not have.

3) Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it supported with confirmation from Eddington’s eclipse observations. And Einstein’s theory also stated that light is attracted to heavy bodies, such as the sun, and this could be proved and tested with photographs at night or during an eclipse, either way this theory could be either confirmed or refuted with credible evidence, therefore holds Popper’s criteria of a scientific theory.

4) The danger of ad hoc theories is that it can be “rescued” from refutation, but at the cost of losing its scientific status, just so it can be changed to no longer be refutable or falsified. The danger is that after escaping refutation the scientific status is lowered maybe even gone therefore the theory could no longer be considered scientific.

5) The problem of demarcation is solved with the criterion of falsifiability. Where in order for theory or a statement to be scientific, it has to argue a possible observation, and be testable and refutable.

6) The logical problem with Induction is that it takes numerous observations and then makes a general rule with them, and that life has no criterion on the validation of induction. In addition there is no actual “logical argument” to support the acceptance of induction.

7) Popper solves the problem of Induction by adding the principles of empiricism , a scientific rule that states “only observation and experiment may decide upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements” therefore induction can either be accepted or rejected from observations and experiments, and solves the “alleged clash” of the 3 principles,

8) Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because, while being tentative, or hesitant, you know there is room for error and mistakes therefore you do more trails and tests. And being subject to revision, you can refer back to old evidence that seemed irrelevant before and use now to further test your theory, making it more accurate and closer to an acceptance and confirmation.

Rachel Do said...

1. According to Popper, falsifiability, refutability, and testability make a theory scientific. If the theory is not questionable, or cannot be attempted to be proven as false, it is not a scientific theory. Also, a theory is only confirmed to be a theory if it is a result of risky predictions. By attempting to find a way to make the theory false, the theory becomes stronger and more accurate as it becomes modified.
2. In Popper’s view, Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science because their theories are irrefutable or non-testable. In Marx’s, Freud’s, and Adler’s case, their evidence is modified in order to correspond to their theory instead of changing their theories to fit their evidence. For example, Marx’s followers modified the evidence and refutations so it would fit into their theory nicely. By fixing the observation, and the theory to match it, they made the theory irrefutable. Because a theory is considered not scientific if it cannot be refuted, Marx’s, Freud’s, and Adler’s theories are not science.
3. Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it was falsifiable, refutable, and testable. Einstein’s theory was falsifiable and refutable because Eddington’s pictures of the eclipse would have shown whether the theory was accurate or not. Also, Einstein’s theory was testable because it was possible for other people to take photos of the eclipse to see if Einstein was correct, even though the equipment during that time was not that advanced.
4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that it rescues the theory from refutation, but at the price of lowering or destroying its scientific status. When the scientific status is lowered or destroyed, the theory becomes in danger of no longer being thought of as scientific.
5. The problem of demarcation is solved by the criterion of falsifiability. Once the theory is able to argue a possible observation that is against the theory, and becomes a scientific theory, the theory is able to be set apart from pseudo-science.
6. The logical problem of induction is that specific ideas and observations turn into generalizations, decreasing the validity behind them. When people generalize, the observations turn into inferences, where people assume things rather than trying to find out accurate information. Thus, the validity decreases with induction.
7. Popper solves the problem of induction by adding the principle of empiricism, which says that only experiment can decide whether a statement is scientific or not, to two other principles. When an experiment decides whether a statement is scientific or not, the test results are what accepts or rejects the statement as scientific. Because the test results are not generalizations or inferences, the problem of induction is solved.
8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because uncertainty helps theories become more accurate. When people are tentative, they begin to question the true accurateness of the idea, helping new discoveries to be made as the idea is modified. Also, by being tentative, people are prone to trying more experiments and tests, helping increase the accurateness of a theory. In all the trials, science is able to become stronger as improved theories are developed.

Delsey Sabu said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
A theory can be called scientific by its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. More a theory forbids and narrows the result, the better the theory gets.
2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
In Popper's perspective, The Marxist theory of History adopted the "soothsaying practice", which was the changing the evidence and the theory to agree with each other, thus, in Popper's view destroying its scientific status. While, the Marxist founders and followers tweaked their evidence and theory, the theories by Freud and Alder were irrefutable, though their theories are important, they contain "psychological suggestions, but not in a testable form." Again Popper believed that a theory that is not refutable is not scientific, for the psycho-analytic theories were irrefutable, for no human behavior could contradict these theories.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein's theory of relativity is science because it could have been easily refuted even if the technology back in the day was not to be completely trusted. Einstein made the prediction light was attracted to heavy bodies, such as the sun and thus the light of the star should visible, but the sun's light does not allow for the star's light to be observable, unless on an eclipse. Eddington's expedition gave proof confirming Einstein's prediction.
4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it might destroy or lower the theory's scientific status.
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation can be solved by falsifiability, or trying to prove something is incorrect.
6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that the multiple trials can cause generalization for it brings in experience, which can thwart the way a scientist looks into the problem and its product.
7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by accepting the principle of empiricism, which is that only observations and experiments can decide if a scientific statement can be accepted or rejected. Although it might not be possible to infer a theory with observation statements, the observations can be used to refute a theory.
8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and careful, a person is more likely to consider if there are ideas that make his/her idea refutable, they are also more likely to narrow and strengthen the theory by considering what the theory prohibits and forbids. An individual is more considerate of the mistakes he/she has made and more likely to do more trials and experiments with observation, which will strengthen the weight of his/her theory.


Urooj said...

1.What makes a theory scientific?
A theory's reputability, falsifiability, and testability are what makes it scientific. Theories need to be testable so their flaws can be shown, once the flaws are found the theory can be changed so that it can become more precise. Evidence is gathered to support the theory as well. A theory must have the ability to be adapted and change, Popper says that is what makes a theory more scientific.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Popper states that Marx's,Freud's, and Adlers theories are not science because "they resemble astrology rather than astronomy". Their theories can basically be applied to any situation making they irrefutable. Popper gave us a scenario where their was one man who pushed a girl into the water and their was another man who jumped into save the girl from drowning. In Marx's theory the first man "suffered from repression" while the second person "achieved sublimation". In Adler's theory both men "wanted to prove [themselves]". The scenario should not have have been able to prove both of their theories, this evidence does help prove either of their theories.

3.Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einsteins theory can be adjusted and changed. The theory could be tested because other scientist could take pictures of the eclipse to see if Einstein was right. His theory could be refuted because Eddington's pictures of the eclipse could show whether the theory was accurate or not.

4.What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
Ad hoc theories makes theories irrefutable, but at the same time destroy the theories scientific status. When part of the theory is proven invalid, the individual will change in so the theory can no longer be refuted.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
It can be solved with falsifiability. The theory must be testable as will as refutable, once the theory can be tested by other scientist and can be revised to be more precise it can be separated from pseudo-science.

6.What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem with induction is that it is a number of observations that can be generalized. People begin to assume or make inferences rather than take the time to find the correct information. So the validity decreases.

7.How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper uses the principle of empiricism to solve the problem of induction. Empiricism is the idea that only observations and experiments can decide whether a scientific hypothesis is correct or not, this takes out the generalizations made from induction.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
If the researcher is open to revision than their theory can be revised and narrowed to strengthen the theory and say what they theory prohibits and forbids. When one is more open to the mistakes made in their theories, they will most likely actually do the experiments needed to make their theory more valid as well.

Nefertari Granados said...

This is my answer to the questions for the second assignment.

1. Popper explains that falsifiability, refutability, and testability make a theory scientific. A theory must be able to be tested so modifications can be made to further attribute to the scientific theory. Therefore, the more of a risk a theory has to be proven false the more scientific it is when the results provide support.

2. Popper believed Marx’s, Freud’s, and Adler’s theories were not scientific because the theories were made irrefutable. The theories were vague enough to be shifted and moved as much as so the results could conform to the theory without the theory being proved false. Therefore the theories were unable to be contradicted because the results were being reinterpreted to meet the theory’s laws rather than modifying the theory to fit the results. One example Popper mentions in his essay is how after Marx tested his theory and it proved to be false, Marx only “reinterpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree.” Very much like Adler interpreted the man drowning a child and the other man rescuing a child as the same thing, because both men wanted to prove themselves. The first man proved he could commit a crime while the second man proved he dared to rescue the child. Popper goes on to explain how all three theories were constantly being “constituted the strongest argument in favour of [the] theories” so they would be seen as true.

3. Popper explained that Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because his theory fit Popper’s criteria of a scientific theory; Einstein’s theory was falsifiable, refutable, and testable. Eddington’s findings could’ve proved the theory wrong or right. Yet, Eddington’s photographs supported Einstein’s theory. Eddington, much like anyone, could test the theory by simply photographing the constellation.

4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that by reinterpreting the theory, the theory is saved from refutation at the price of no longer being seen as scientific. Theories need to be scientific in order to be taken as universal laws; otherwise the theories would be useless.

5. The problem of demarcation was solved on the “criterion of falsifiability.” If a theory could be tested with a high risk, as Popper explained, then it would be scientific rather than pseudo-science because the theory would be able to conflict with other possible observations.

6. The logical problem of induction, as Popper explains, is that it is impossible to validate a universal law through observations because every trial that supports the theory contains and passes on “experience” from one trial to another. The observations only cause generalization. Generalization isn’t certain, it only would be probable. Yet the universe mounts laws upon few observations and claims it to be true.

7. Popper solves the problem of induction by stating that the principle of empiricism can still stand as support for theories as long as the observations are reasonable and the theory is able to withstand further riskier testing.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because trial and error show the flaws in the work so further modifications can be made to improve and strengthen the theories so they become more valid as scientific.

tony cisneros said...

1.What make a theory specific is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. Specifitly a theory has a confirmation but only counts if a prediction is risky, every good prediction should be a prohibition and refutable becuase when tested should be to refutable, falsify the theory.

2. Explain why in Pooper's view Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho,analysis and Alfred Adler's " individual psychology are not science. Marx prediction was testable and falsifed but not accepting it made the theory and evidence to make them agree with eachother. With them being rescued, made them irrefutable not making them able to claim to scientific status. Freud and Adler's theories no conceivable human behavior and clinical observations are not science because of their confirmations do not make them substantially claim to scientific status for the lack of a testable for a more of a psychological suggestions. " For it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable,[and] observations."

3. Einstein's theory of relativity is science for the fact that Einstein's gravitational theory had led to the light must be attracted by heavy bodies such as the sun. Einstein's prediction was confirmed by Eddington's expedition during an eclipse taken a picture to see the star distance of the sun, with the two photographs of the eclipse they are able to measure the distance than they would in daytime.

4. The danger of the ad hoc theory is that it rescues the theory from being refutable only to destroy or at least lower its scientific status. Being described as "conventionalist twist" or conventionalist stratagem."

5. Demarcation solved the problem of science and pseudo scientific is the criterion of falsifiability for in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.

6. The logical problem of induction is " induction allows us to generalize a number of observations which is impossible to justify a law by observation or experiment, since it "transcends experience."

7. Popper solved the problem of induction by adding the principle of empiricism, which is decide by observation and experiment by tje result of tests as long as theory stands up to the servest test [they] can design.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because having to prove specifically of a theory, when ypur tentative you can seem to find the refutable of the theory, finding what is forbided. Testing the theory to attempt to falsify it and have to revision the theory to find its cinfirmation of it, making it the strength of science.

Tatiana Perkins said...

This is my answer:


1. What makes a theory scientific?
A scientific theory is able to be tested and is reliable. A theory is not scientific if it can not be proven by tests. A theory must have “falsifiability, refutability, and testability”, and if it cannot be proven accurate or inaccurate, it is not a theory at all. A theory must be able to be changed if tests prove against the initial theory.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Fred’s psycho-analysis and Alder’s “individual psychology” are not science because both are irrefutable. A theory must be able to be altered and tested to discover new facts. He uses the idea that their "they resemble astrology rather than astronomy" so that they do offer an idea, but because it is in such a broad scope that can be applied to many situations, that it is not able to be tested and changed.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it is able to be altered. Even today, scientists are able to test the theory and prove it either more correct or find a flaw in the theory. Eddison was able to further confirm Einstein’s theory by conducting a test.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that if it is no longer able to be refuted, there will never be new tests on the theory to prove if it is accurate. The status of the theory would lower and then it may no longer be scientific if it is not able to be proven inaccurate.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
Demarcation was solved by falsifiability. Being able to trial a theory with any observations that could prove it accurate or inaccurate would eliminate the difference between science and psedo-science.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that through trials of a theory, knowledge from past tests is always considered. The validity of each theory may be skewed because there are generalizations made about it that are simply assumed rather than re-tested.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction through the principle of empiricism. This way, observations and experiments can be used to test and determine if the scientific theory is correct. Generalizations are eliminated and the validity is no longer at risk.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because it allows determining if a theory is correct. If a theory is flawed, testing it could make the theory more accurate. Science is ever changing, as technology advances and the world around us does also. Being able to test previous theories keeps our knowledge updated as change occurs. If any mistakes are made, it is good to retrial to make sure that the experiment is still valid.

Karlie Shoemaker said...

1)A theory is indeed scientific if it can be proven to hold charactistics such as “falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”. If the theory can’t fall under one of those factors then it is not a theory.
2)A good example of this is Poppers explanation of the man trying to drown the boy by pushing him into the water, he explained that it was because of the way he was treated, and he became a person that would do such things. This leads me the the conclusion that the scientific aspect of these men’s theory were lacking and the focus was simply on human behavior.
Popper believed that these men have theory’s that were not scientific at all being that they couldn’t be tested by anything but how humans act.
3)Science is testing and collecting evidence, so in turn his theory is correct because relativity is experimented with and tested, and new ideas are discovered and proven on the topic in modern times. Basically his theory fit under the original three categories Popper used to describe a theory.
4)The danger of the ad hoc theory is the nature of it, being destroyed scientific and making it's value as a scientific theory go down. It is no longer refutable because of its lower scientific standing and value.
5)The problem of demarcation was solved with the “criterion of falsifiability” because once a subject has enough evidence on both sides of the theory, it stands firm as a scientific topic and can be explored.
6)Induction is simply a problem because generalization leaves a a lot of information out there not fully covered by the generalization which in turn takes away possible important information.
7Popper solved the problem of induction by speaking too the idea of empiricism, meaning that theory comes from each scientists first hand sensory experience with a topic.
8)Being tentative gives a scientist the strength of truly seeing what a theory is turning out as far as results, so that a theory can really be proven correct or incorrect. revision is important because results can change what you have generalized about a topic and in turn changed your results.

richard forrester said...

This is my answer!
1. What makes a theory scientific?
Popper explains that falsifiability, refutability, and testability make a theory scientific. A scientific theory is one that leaves rooms for questions and speculations and is able to be tested as to improve its applicability in the field of scientific theories.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
These theories are so vague that it renders them irrefutable and unable to be properly tested in a way that would lead to a definitive outcome. An example that Popper gave with is that a man that pushed a girl into the water and a man jumped into the water to save the girl. According to Marx's theory the first man "suffered from repression" and the second man "achieved sublimation" whereas based on Adler's theory both men "wanted to prove [themselves]" and achieve their personal goal. This theory unlike Einstein theory of relativity cannot be proven or disproved rendering it completely useless. Popper stated that,“the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” and these theories are lacking such traits making them obsolete in the world of science.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen limiting the outcome. In Einstein’s theory it is incompatible with certain possible results. Also it is able to be tested and deemed wrong or right as demonstrated by Eddington’s. The theory complies with Popper general criteria’s of a scientific theory therefore proving it to be a valid scientific theory.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
“By introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status.” This renders the theory irrefutable.”Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice.”

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation was solved by following the guidelines of Poppers theory. If a theory is able to be tested on whether it is valid or not then it is deemed scientific.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
It goes about its problem based on a general experience rather than observing it as if where for the first time. I give false hope and assume future outcomes based on past ones and looks for what is most likely than what may actually occur. A problem should be talked with a fresh mind rather than clouding you judgment with the past. No one know what the future holds because everything is unpredictable.


7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
With the principle of empiricism which asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including laws and theories.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative is a valuable asset to science in the sense that applies flexibility to the subject leaving room for reworking, improving it and testing its accuracy. They will be able to initiate subject to revision when necessary and even refer back to from hypotheses and ideas that were earlier discarded. Being able to adapt in an ever changing world is one of the most valuable assets of science.

Jomardee Perkins said...

1. A theory is known to be scientific though its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. A theory is meant to be tested in order to prove that it’s not only true, but also false. If a theory cannot be nearly proven to be false, then that theory is not scientific.

2. In Popper’s perspective; Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not proven to be science, but a myth of it, ergo, resembling “astrology rather than astronomy”. However, their “theories” contained psychological suggestions, but were unable to be tested. Popper also brought up an example that signified Adler’s and Freud’s theory: “That a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child”. This then proves both, Adler’s and Freud’s theory because in Adler’s theory, the first man and the second man “need to prove himself”. And in Freud’s theory, the first man “suffered from repression” while the second man “achieved sublimation”. Nonetheless, Marx, Adler, and Freud’s theories are irrefutable, making their theories not science.

3. In Popper’s perspective, Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it clearly “satisfied the criterion of falsifiability” and was also a possibility to prove the theory is false. Due to the fact that the stars cause to be invisible during the daytime by the sun’s brightness; but during an eclipse, the constellation is photographed twice at night, in order to measure the distance of the two photos and check Einstein’s effect towards his prediction. Overall, Einstein’s theory can be altered in many ways that enabled his hypotheses to become more accurate towards his evidence that he gathered.

4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that it can escape refutation, therefore making the theory no long false. The outcome is this will cause destruction in science, or at least lowering its scientific status.

5. The solution of the problem of demarcation is that it states s that in order for a theory to be scientific, it must be testable, refutable, and argued with possibilities.

6. The logical problem of induction is that it takes a broad view of observation, making it less accurate than experimenting something. This is then known to be “neither a psychological fact, a fact of ordinary life” nor a scientific method.

7. Popper’s solution of induction is by accepting the law of empiricism, where as a scientific theory can be determined to be accepted or rejected through observations and experiments.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because being tentative, or uncertain, with a theory will enable you to experiment a much more relevant evidence for the statement. Thus, strengthening the way of his/her theory without essentially disposing the old one, this led closer to accepting the statement than the last one.

Kelly Bounxayavong said...

This is the first part of my answer!!!!
1. What makes a theory scientific? To make a theory scientific, it must include tests for falsifiability or refutability, or testability. Also, the more limitations or prohibitions set for the theory to forbid, the better it is. He also mentions how a scientific theory must be “risky”: the better you test for the falsifiability of the theory, the greater risks one may take. An example given was of the astrologers trying to make their theory airtight with no room for testing to prove it false. A theory should include the possibility that it may be wrong. There should be empirical evidence backing up the theories.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation. Popper’s view of Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psychoanalysis and Adler’s “individual psychology” are not sciences because they weren’t refutable. For example, Marx’s followers took the refutations proven by others and twisted it in order to make it follow their theory and agree with it. The fact that his followers twisted the fact proving his theory to be false, and making it agree with their point of view- the ”conventional twist” made his theory non-scientific and just ruined the theory as having a scientific status. Freud and Adler’s views were just irrefutable. Everyday observations would fit both of their theories, such as the man drowning the child versus the man saving the child from drowning. Referring to both Adler’s “individual psychology” and Freud’s psycho-analysis, it’s the individual’s decisions on how to take an outlook on it. Both instances could be applied to both Freud’s and Adler’s psychology, thus making it non-scientific for its lack of irrefutability.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science. Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because of the risk involved in his prediction. His theory was away from what people in his time had believed, making it risky for him. There was also the safety net of being able to prove if it was true or not by taking pictures of the same constellation during an eclipse (making it day time) and at night to verify if his theory is correct. The fact that it could be refuted makes it science.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories? The danger of ad hoc theories is that it prevents theories from being refuted, however, it creates a danger for the theory of being a “myth” and not actually science. By not being refutable, then it’ll give the scientific community ideas that it is not in fact a science, but doesn’t mean we don’t have to listen to it. Ad hoc theories are dangerous because it prevents the theory from being a real science admitted by the science community.

Kelly Bounxayavong said...

Second part of answer!
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved? Demarcation distinguishes two things into different subjects. Science and pseudoscience are distinguished by the basis of their falsifiability and refutability. Science is falsifiable whereas pseudoscience is more accepted without refutes.

6. What is the logical problem of induction? The logical problem of induction is that it’s a generalized concept of an idea different groups of people make based on their observations and not necessarily from testing. It isn’t a valid idea since there’s no proof or facts backing it other than their own observations; there’s no experiment backing it up. Inductions are most usually theories presented with uncertainty and not science.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction? Popper solves the problem of induction by introducing the principles of empiricism. The state of a theory is decided by observation and experiment-the results of the tests. If a theory is subjected to the severest of tests, then it is accepted. However, if it fails then it’s rejected.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science? Being tentative and subject to revision is a strength of science because it reveals the validity and ever-changing theory, proving the theory to still be true with the addition of new findings and facts, making it more valid. It allows the theory to become more accurate.

Arnela Grebovic said...

1. "The criterion of the scientific status of a theory", according to Popper, is its "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." In order for a theory to be scientific it must be able to undergo tests and experiments where data and observations are obtained that either refute the theory or prove it.

2. According to Popper, Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis
and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science because they are not refutable or testable. Popper explained that there was no human behavior that could not easily be explained by either Freud's or Adler's theory, and that this was in fact their weakness. In Popper's example "of a man who pushes a child into the water with the intention of drowning it; and that of a man who sacrifices his life in an attempt to save the child" he says Freud would explain the first mans behavior as suffering from repression and the second man as having achieved sublimation. According to Adler's theory, the first and second man suffered from feelings of inferiority. These tests or observations, while confirming the theory, were not serious attempts to falsify the theory, making them non scientific theories. As well as Marx theory of history, one "could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation", making Marx theory nonscientific since it is "not refutable by any conceivable event".

3. Einstein's theory of relativity is science because of Eddington's ability to test Einstein's theory as true, or to refute it. By testing Einstein's theory Eddington obtained confirming evidence to support Einstein's theory, unlike the theories of Adler and Freud which were able to conform to any instance.

4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that by making the theory irrefutable by re-interpreting it, it is lowering the scientific status of the theory.

5. The "problem of demarcation" was solved by separating scientific theories from pseudo science as being able to undergo the scrutiny of tests and experiments which obtain information to either refute or prove the theory.

6. The logical problem of induction is that laws and theories are being made through the use of inferences and “scanty material”, making so that it would be “impossible to justify a law” or theory. No matter how many experiments or observations are made, the law or theory will never be truly right or wrong, because there are an infinite number of experiments to be performed.

7. The solution to the problem of induction is to include the principle of empiricism. The principle of empiricism allows for the law or theory to be accepted as long as it can withstand the severest of tests, and once it cannot it is rejected, making so that no law or theory is ever permanent.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because it means that there will always be strive to make every theory and law better and more accurate. This gives us the ability to prove a theory correct or incorrect and change it to become better. In this way science is always becoming more accurate and increasing our knowledge of the world around us.

Kaella Bravo said...

Here's my answer:

1. A theory is considered to be scientific if it can be used for experiments and multiple trials. Also, a scientific theory must have a prohibition on certain thing because as Popper states, "the more a theory forbids, the better it is."

2. Although Marx's theory of history was indeed testable, it was later falsified. As a result, Marx's followers reinterpreted the theory in a way so that it would agree with the evidence. Therefore, the science behind the theory was destroyed. The theory was given a "conventional twist", where they "destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status."

Freud's psycho-analytic theories are not scientific because they cannot be used for experiments. As Popper states, "these theories describe some facts, but in a matter of myths." His theories are not science because the facts are non-testable.

Popper believes that Alder's "individual psychology" is not science because "...they always fitted...admirers constituted the strongest argument in favor of these theories." In science, one must consider all types of arguments, both strong and weak. And Alder failed to do this.

3. Einstein's theory is scientific because it is testable and can be used for further research. When a picture is taken during an eclipse, it is possible to determine the distance between constellations and also predict the following effect.

4. The danger with ad hoc theories is that by reshaping the theory itself, it is preventing refutation; therefore the science behind it is not admired to its full, true value.

5. The problem with demarcation is solved my falsifying statements, where it conflicts with conceivable observations.

6. The general problem with induction is that many different principles and ideals will clash onto one another; where one principle must be eliminated. "this makes it quite clear that 'valid induction' was here meant to serve as a criterion of demarcation between science and pseudo-science."

7. Popper solves the problem of induction by giving full appreciation to the relation between theories and observations. He believes that theories should not be inferred through observation statements.

8. Being tentative and seeking revisions are the strength to science because science is about multiple trials and errors. One should not rush onto things, and it is important for us to be very hesitant and observant about making predictions. Revisions will strengthen science because the more revisions we have, the better the experiment or theory will be.

Puneet Dhaliwal said...

This is my answer
1.
A theory is scientific if it is falsifiable, refutable, and testable. If a theory is falsifiable and refutable then by doing repeated trials, the theory becomes stronger because it is backed up by empirical evidence in the scientific sense; and to do experiments on a theory, it must be testable.
2.
In Popper’s view, Marx’s theory of history isn’t science because even though it was testable and falsified, the followers of Marx had reinterpreted the theory and the evidence of the theory so that it wouldn’t be refutable, yet by doing that, they had given a “conventionalist twist to the theory” which destroyed it’s claim to scientific status. Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science because they were non-testable, therefore irrefutable. There was no human behavior that could contradict them, making them more like psychological suggestions; and those were not available in a testable form.
3.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because Eddington was able to test Einstein’s theory, making it testable. And since Eddington was able to come up with evidence for Einstein’s theory by observing an eclipse, the theory is falsifiable and refutable. By being falsifiable, refutable and testable, Einstein’s theory of relativity is scientific, making it science; unlike Marx’s, Freud’s and Adler’s theories.
4.
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it risks the scientific status of the theory to be lowered or even destroyed when attempting to rescue it from refutation. So even though the theory becomes refutable, it is considered to be less/not scientific.
5.
The problem of demarcation was solved by falsifiability by how the theory can or can’t defend itself from contradicting statements, or other things that would make seem false, for it would separate scientific theories from pseudo science.
6.
The logical problem of induction is that it makes theories only probably rather than certain, and that makes the theories, ideas, and observations into things inferences or even myths for it’s impossible to prove a theory to be right or wrong.
7.
Popper solves the problem of induction by adding empiricism. This solves the problem of induction because by gathering evidence from experiments, a person is able to support whether something is scientific or not. Also, the data/evidence from those experiments can be repeated so that they are not said to be myths, inferences, etc.
8.
Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because by being unsure, people are tempted to repeat trails to make sure of supporting evidence, statements, and theories and that just adds assurance to an idea, making it stronger with every test. And by being subject to revision, we are opening doors around us by wanting to know more or wanting to know the right things, thus increasing our knowledge.

Irina Fomina said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
The characteristics of "falsifiability, refutability, and testability" makes a theory scientific. Tests must be able to be done in attempt to falsify the theory in order for it be be considered scientific.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Marx's, Freud's, and Alder's theories are not science because they cannot be proven false. All the theories are vague and could be "rescued" by stretching the theory to fit the results of any test. The theories do not leave room for error and instead are found irrefutable. For example, Alder's theory was so "verified" that he could analyze a persons feeling without even examining the child. He was certain that a new test will not produce results that will falsify or refute the theory.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it meets Popper's requirements of being testable, refutable, and falsified. Observations could be done to alter the theory because "risk" or the possibility of finding error in the theory, was present.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it "rescues" the theory from refutation. Once a theory is "rescued" from refutation by re-interpreting the theory, it looses its scientific value and status.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation is solved by the criterion of falsifiability. If a theory can be tested for falseness, than it can be be considered scientific and set apart from pseudoscience.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that it allows us to take a number of observations and turn it into a generalized rule. We cannot prove those general observations to be one hundred percent correct every time because we do not know what will happen in the future. Therefore, the generalized rule has a degree of falsifiability and rules must not contain any falseness.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction with the principles of empiricism. He states that only observation and experiments can decide whether a theory is accepted or rejected. If a theory can withstand the severest tests, than it is accepted and if not, than it is rejected.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subject to revision is a strength of science because it allows a theory to exist through alteration of the existing theory. The theory could be amended to create a stronger and more accurate prediction of what is thought to be the truth.

Peter Chang said...

1. A theory is labeled scientific if it has "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability." The theory must be able to be put through tests, and be able to proven false to earn the status of being scientific

2. Popper labels Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” to not be scientific because their theories are not testable, irrefutable. In Marx's theory, it states that theories and evidence are reinterpreted in order agree. This however, causes the theory to be able to become false, which is not scientific. The two psych theories are not scientific because of being irrefutable. The scenario of the man drowning the child and the man saving the drowning child belongs to both the theories, which does not follow the scientific status of being of "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability."

3. Einstein's theory of relativity is science because it could be falsified, refuted, and tested. Einstein's theory was that "light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun)." As a result, stars should be visible in daylight, but are actually invisible due to the sun's bright light. This theory was later tested and confirmed by Eddingtion who took pictures of the stars when a eclipse was present, the only time that the stars are visible in the daytime.

4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that a theory may be rescued by refutation, but is destroyed or decreased in its scientific status. This lowered scientific status puts the theory at risk of no longer being considered scientific.

5. The problem of demarcation is solved with falsifiability. When the theory is capable of coming up with a potential observation that may go against the theory, then the dividing line between science theory and pseudo-science is drawn.

6. The logical problem of induction is that many observations get generalized, which results in there being no criterion on validating induction. People are more inclined to infer by the generalizations, not digging deeper to uncover more precise information, which ultimately decreases the validity of induction.

7. Popper solves the problem of induction by applying the principles of empiricism. The principle of empiricism is that only observations and experiments may decide whether a statement is scientific or not. As a result, any generalizations become obsolete, which fixes the issue of induction.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because going through constant trial and errors allows for more accurate theories. Becoming aware of a mistake and then capitalizing on it will only make one more intellectual. As people continue to revise theories, more discoveries will occur in the world of science.

james34 said...

This is my answer:
1. Scientific theories are made based on falsifiablility, refutability, and testability. When theories are made, they must be tested in order to try to prove it wrong or "falseify" it for it to be considered a scientific theory.
2. Adler's, Marx's, and Freud's theories are not science based on the fact that their theories cannot be proven untrue. This violates the refutability condition that makes a theory scientific. One example can be found in Adler's theory. He was so confident in his theory that he could figure out a child's feelings without even seeing the child, for he was certain that his theory was not false or refutable.
3. Einstein's theory of relativity is considered science because it is testable, refutable, and falsifiable. Einstein's theory could be altered because his theory could have errors in it.
4. ad hoc theories are dangerous, for they save theories from refutation by re-interpreting them. this causes the theories to lose their value scientifically.
5. Demarcation is solved through falsifiability. What sets a theory apart from pseudoscience is its ability to be tested for falseness.
6. The problem with induction is that it grants scientists the ability to create scientific laws, laws of nature that should be 100% proven, based on generalized observations. These observations can only be used to create plausible predictions, which cannot be 100% true for we cannot tell what will always happen in the future. This means that the scientific laws can have falsifiability, which makes them theories, not laws.
7. Popper uses the principles of empiricism to solve the problem induction causes. Empiricism states that theories can only become acceptable through observation and experimentation, rather than the plausible predictions used in induction.
8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because our understanding of the universe is always changing. this way, we are able to change previous theories to match our knowledge of today, in turn, preserving our knowledge of science as it changes.
-James Darby

Phuong Van said...

1. According to Popper, a theory is scientific due to its falsifiability, refutability, and testability. The theory must be questionable and be able to attempt to prove as false, since a theory is only confirmed if it is a risky prediction. Since, theories are risky predictions they may contain defects, which is why theories are always modified only to strengthen and make the theory more accurate

2. Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science in Popper’s perspective because these theories are not refutable or testable. These theories can define or explain any human behavior there is out there. For example, a situation could be explained using Adler’s theory or Freud’s theory. A man pushes a child into water with an intention of drowning it; Freud would say the reason behind this man pushing the child into water would be due to him suffering from repression. However, Adler would say that he “suffered from feelings of inferiority”. One could not test if the man was suffering repression nor could one test if the man was feeling inferiority. In contrast, Einstein’s scientific theory was able to be supported by physical evidence that had not been modified rather than using human behavior as evidence. Therefore, their theories are not scientific.

3. Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it is testable, refutable and falsifiable. It was refutable and falsifiable because if the photograph of the constellation did not show the predicted effect then the theory would be refuted. It was testable because one could take a picture like Eddington and see if the theory would be refuted. Therefore, Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.

4. The danger of ad hoc theories is it lowers the scientific status because they are trying to rescue the theory from refutation that they make it irrefutable which could destroy its scientific status.

5. The problem of demarcation between science and pseudo-science is solved by the criterion of falsifiability because in order to be considered science, it must be testable and refutable.

6. The logical problem of induction is the clashing between three principles ( justifying a law by observation or experiment, the fact science proposes and uses law everywhere, and observation and experiment may decide upon acceptance or rejection of scientific statements).

7. Popper solved the problem of induction by realizing that the laws do not at all clash. Just because an observation or experiment cannot justify a law does not mean that an experiment cannot refute a theory/law. The law of empirical, which is deciding the fate of a theory on the results of a test, does not affect the other principles because test results are not generalizations. This clears the problem of induction.

8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because it encourages people to never stop trying to improve. Nothing in science is for certain because there can always be new evidence that shows one’s theory as inaccurate. One can get new technology that shed a whole new light on something that one thought differently. And with the ability to revise, one can make things more accurate. Therefore, being tentative and having the ability to revise the strength of science.

Isabelle Abarro said...

This is my answer.

1. A theory is scientific if it is testable, refutable, and is falsifiable. If a theory is refutable and could be false then scientists will want to do lots of tests and gather empirical evidence to make the theory more reliable. It also has to be testable so that other scientist can test the theory to see if they get the same results.
2. Marx's view of history isn't science because the theory was refuted and was found as a false theory. But since his followers were so strong in believing they changed the theory so that it would be found as true and still kept believing in his theory. The followers gave his theory a "conventionalist twist" so it was found as a scientific theory anymore. Psychoanalysis and "individual psychology" is not science because they weren't refutable. A scientific theory has to be refutable and since they weren't refutable they were considered psychology. Psychology is not testable so those theories are not scientific either.
3. Einstein's theory of relativity is science because Eddington was able to test Einstein's theory making it testable. Eddington was able to come up with evidence for Einstein's theory backing up his theory even more. Since Einstein's theory is falsifiable, testable, and refutable his theory is scientific.
4. The danger of ad hoc theories are that they are not refutable so it lowers the status of that theory and can even destroy it. The authors of these theories are so worried about refutation that they make them irrefutable making it less of a scientific theory.
5. The problem of demarcation was solved by falsifiability. The theory could or couldn't defend itself from contradicting statements or that it was false and falsifiability is part of what makes a theory scientific. This is what separates science from pseudo-science.
6. The logical problem of induction is that instead of making theories certain or true, it only makes theories probable. If a theory is probable then it doesn't exclude itself from being called an inference or even a myth. An inference or a myth is never certain and theories can always be proved right or wrong.
7. Popper solves the problem of induction by adding empiricism. Empiricism is gathering evidence and data that would support theories. If there is lots of evidence from different scientists for one theory, the theory can be more or less scientific. Also if there is evidence those theories cannot be made into an inference or a myth or even an opinion.
8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because if a theory can always be proved wrong then scientists will want to experiment and make hypotheses and test the theory so that there is more or less evidence on the theory making it more or less scientific. If we didn't test and test different theories we never would have moved forward and might still be believing in things that are not true about this world. This way, we have more knowledge about the world around us.

Karyn Ferreira said...

This is my answer
1. What makes a theory scientific?
A theory is only deemed scientific if the theory has falsifiability, refutability, and testability. Without anyone of the characteristics missing, it can not be considered a scientific theory

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Popper explained how in Marx's theory of history, Marx's followers modified the theories to save it from being irrefutable, and make the theory and evidence agree. By doing so they "destroyed its much advertised claim to scientific status" Instead of accepting errors, they were trying to make the theory flawless.Therefore, even if the predictions were testable and falsified, the theory could not be refutable and thus not science. With the psycho-analysis by Freud and Adler, the theories were simply untestable and irrefutable and according to Popper,"There was no conceivable human behaviour which could contradict them. " Thus, the theory cannot be science for the simple fact that you cannot test it nor can you refute it. It is a fact told in a manner of myth.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein's theory of relativity is science because Eddington's expedition confirmed it to be true. Einstein theorized that light is attracted to heavy bodies. And his theory was testable, falsifiable, or refutable.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it lowers the value of the theory by making the theory not refutable and ultimately not considering it science.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
Demarcation is solved with the criterion of falsification, which means that to prove something is scientific it would need to conflict with an observation or experimentation.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that theories are coming to existence through generalizations from observations and experimenting, and assuming what has not been experimented with.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by using the idea of empiricism, in which states that theories can can be accepted through observations and experiments as long as generalizations aren't made to determine a scientific theory

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because being tentative you can refute a theory more and be hesitant about it. And subject to revision is a strength because multiple times of doing things could make results more stable and even better.

Kamilla Othman said...

Answers for the second assignment:

1. What makes a theory scientific?
Because science is inclined to revisions, Sir Karl Popper states that falsifiability, reputability, and testability establish a scientific theory. Particularly a "good" scientific theory does not let particular outcomes to occur, and hence the more prohibitions, the better. A theory's testability must be an attempt to refute it prior to obtaining confirmations that counted as a result of risky predictions.
2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
In Popper's view, Marx's, Freud's and Adler's approaches were closer with myths than science. Their confirmations of observations verified in favor of their already personal and established conclusions. For one, a Marxist would confirm historical evidences by a single interpretation, a Freudian would rely on "clinical observations", and an Adlerian on past experiences; which according to Popper could be equally illustrated in Freud's theory. In one example he used human behavior of two men in a situation that required action. Since in the same setting Adler and Freud diagnosed and characterized the men differently according to a favorable conclusion, their theories are hence inclined to psychological studies rather than science. Both theories were simply too "compatible" and perfect, making it impossible to accurately characterize human behavior.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science
Due to the presence of rick in a prediction of the gravitational theory possibly attracting light by heavy bodies, the theory had a potential incompatibility with some outcomes. Hence the confirmations would have counted with a refuted theory. Likewise the main purpose of tests is to "falsify" the theory even though Eddington confirmed it, as it is a criterion of falsifiability according to Popper.
4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
Although ad hoc theories protect theories from the possibility of being refuted, they simultaneously decrease their scientific status, however are still upheld and may be changed.
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation was solved with falsifiability, which would also be based upon testability to be considered scientific.
6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is seen through the decrease in validation even though induction provides a way to generalize all observations into one.
7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
To solve the problem with induction Hume showed that is impossible to infer a theory from observation statements; but the possibility of refuting a theory by observation statements.
8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
A researcher or a philosopher in the field of science is required to tentativeness and a number of revisions in order to better their complete scientific hypothesis, conclusion, theory. Likewise a tentative scientist would quicker see whether his or her theory is refutable or forbidden.





ohhaney ! said...

This is my answer:
1. A theory is deemed scientific if it is able to be demonstrated as false in an experiment (falsifiability and refutability) and if it is able to be tested and produce similar results (testability).
2. All three, Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology”, are not considered sciences by Popper because they lack the aspect of refutability and testability. This meaning that their theories cannot be tested and proven as true. This is because the theories are vague and leave room for interpretation. This allows them to be slightly tweaked so any results could work for the theory without the theory being proved false. For Marx's theory, his followers took the refutations proven by others and twisted it in order to make it follow their theory thus ruining the scientific process of falsifiability, refutability, and testability.
3. Popper regards Einstein's theory of relativity as science due to its ability to be tested and found true or false. Einstein believed that "light must be attracted by heavy bodies (such as the sun)." Meaning that stars are "visible" in daylight and just made unseeable because of the sun. This theory was able to be put to the test by Eddington who photographed the stars during the eclipse. During the eclipse the stars were visible proving Einstein's theory to be true.
4. Ad hoc theories present a danger due to its ability to "rescue" theories from refutation of others by twisting them around to make them fit any set of results, therefore lowering the scientific standard and possibly ruining the scientific status.
5. Demarcation is resolved through falsifiability which means that if it can be proven false through contradicting statements then it can be qualified as scientific versus a pseudo-science.
6. Induction presents a problem due to the capability of scientists to make laws based off of generalized observation. Laws must be without doubt certain, yet this cannot be obtained through just dogmatic observation, these can only be useful in making predictions for the future.
7. The problem of induction is solved by Popper through empiricism. Meaning that Popper added the values of empiricism to induction in order for theories that are proven through intense experimentation to be kept while those that fail to pass strict observation and tests are discarded.
8. The best scientists are those that are tentative and flexible for revision of their ideas. This is because scientist may come across new data that helps support their theory better or that causes the theory to have to be changed resulting in a theory that can withstand many tests and observations. Also scientists must be tentative in order to take in account little aspects of theories and experiments that may constitue human error or change the theory itself.

Anna Kovalevich said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
Science is very complicated and broad. It requires scientific theories to be testable, and alterable, because of new evidence and new discoveries. This is simple because science in itself is too broad to pinpoint and have an actual “truth.”
2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
According to Popper, Freud's, Marx's and Adler’s theories are not science because "they resemble astrology rather than astronomy". They were irrefutable, which Popper disapproved of. Each theory was vague enough to be able to be applied to any situation without being disproved. The example of a man drowning a child and another man rescuing that child were interpreted by Adler as both men trying to prove themselves. One was trying to prove he could commit a crime, while the other that he was brave enough to rescue the child. Each shifted their theory to fit the situation. All three theories were being “constituted the strongest argument in favour of [the] theories” so they would be seen as true.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory is science because it can be changed. His theory can be tested and disproved, or altered, which is what science is since there’s no way to pinpoint the actual truth (as mentioned before).
4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that it rescues the theory from refutation but at the price of destroying its scientific status. When this happens, the theory becomes in danger of no longer being refutable and scientific.
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation can be solved by falsifiability, or trying to prove something is incorrect. In order for a theory to be scientific, it has to argue a possible observation, and be testable.
6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that it is a number of observations being generalized into one rule or a principle. The problem with that is that there is no criterion of validity for these inductions.
7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by viewing inductions as a myth. He believes theories to be made by propositions and criticism from other scientists which makes a theory more valid.
8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative, people are more likely to strengthen their theory by considering the mistakes they has made and are more likely to do more trials and experiments with a theory, which will strengthen that theory.

Marissa Grover said...

1)What makes a theory scientific?
Popper states that the refutability, falsifiability, and testability are what make a theory scientific. Popper further explains that if the theory is not refutable, it is not at all scientific.
2) Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
Popper believes that the three theories “resembled astrology rather than astronomy”. Main problem was that they weren’t at all refutable, they “always fitted” and were “always confirmed-which in the eyes of their admirers”. For example, the test with the drowning girl, both Freud and Adler took in the information gathered and interpreted it using their theory. So, rather than refuting their theory, they were merely altering it to fit their theory making it so “no conceivable human behavior” “could contradict then”.
3) Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because “there was clearly a possibility of refuting the theory” allowing room for criticism as well as changes, Einstein’s theory of relativity fits into Popper’s idea of a science.
4) What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that there is no way to prove them wrong, ultimately “escape refutation”. It saves the theory from refutation, or “lowering its scientific status”.
5) In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
Popper proposes a solution to the problem of demarcation by means of falsification. Popper used the capacity for falsifiability as the primary test separating science and pseudo-science.
6) What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction was that it was “transcend[ed] from experience” making it impossible to “justify a law”. The experiments were generalized, leaving them with the possibility of being less accurate.
7) How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by using the principle of empiricism, meaning that acceptance or rejection is solely decided by “observation and experiment”. Therefore, if a theory can withstand the most “severest tests” scientists can design, then the theory “is accepted”; “only the falsity of the theory can be inferred from empirical evidence”.
8) Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because you will always be open in doing more experiments while allowing space for improvement or criticism ultimately making your theory stronger.

Cindy Mach said...

1. Popper states that, “The scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” A theory is the result of risky predictions and the likely it is to be proven false, then the more reliable the theory will be once supported by evidence.
2. Popper’s views on Freud’s and Alder’s theories are not science because they are considered irrefutable. The theories in which they hypothesize are not capable of being tested in a way that would lead to only one conclusion. For example, Marx’s supporters took the contradictions proven by others and made it in a way that would follow their theory and agree with it. Their supporters were only making it so that the theory would render true. Everyday observations would fit in with both of their theories, such as the man drowning the child versus the man saving the child from drowning. These experiments were non testable therefore irrefutable.
3. Einstein’s theory of relativity is Science because it was testable. Eddington was able to test Einstein’s theory and confirm it. Because Einstein’s theory is testable, refutable and falsifiable it is Scientific.
4. The danger of ad hoc theories is that it lowers the significance of the theory by having the theory be not refutable. This keeps the theory from being an actual Science and lowers the status of the scientific theory.
5. The problem of demarcation is solved with falsifiability. In order for it to be considered science, demarcation must be testable and refutable.
6. The logical problem of induction is in the decrease of validation due to its ability of being overgeneralized through numbers of observations.
7. Popper solves the problem of induction through the principles of empiricism. This principle permits for the law or theory to be accepted as long as it is able to withstand observations and experiments. If not able to withstand these tests, then then it becomes no longer valid/acceptable.
8. According to Popper being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because it allows a theory more accuracy. Being able to perform more experiments gives way for trial and errors. Being open to alteration make a theory more factual in that Science is never a concrete subject and is prone to mistakes. If they are made aware of the possibility of mistake then they are more likely to perform more experiments therefore strengthening their final conclusion.

Sherwin said...

1- Theories that are scientific have the traits that are "falsifiability, refutability, and testability". Also can be tested to either proven wrong, or the theory becomes a scientific law.
2- Adler's, Marx's, and Freud's theories are not a science based on the truth that their theories cannot be proven incorrect. The traits that have to do with all theories which are "falsifiability, refutability, and testability". One example of how Adler’s theory is not science based is how he found no difficulty in analyzing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child.
3- Einstein's theory of relativity is considered science because it is testable, refutable, and falsifiable.
4- Ad hoc theories are dangerous “in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status”.
5- Demarcation is solved by falsifiability. A theory differs from pseudoscience is its availability to be tested to be correct.
6- A logical problem with induction is that scientists have the ability to create laws that are plausible to be 100% true by a generalized observation, which later on have the possibility of being incorrect. This turns the law into a theory.
7- Popper used the principle of empiricism. “Which asserts that in science, only observation and experiment may decide upon the acceptance or rejection of scientific statements, including laws and theories”.
8- Tentativeness and revision strengthen science due to the procedure taken to fully understand the change that is taking place within our environment. With every revision the more detailed and accurate the data will be for experiments and a more definite observations will be made.

han nguyen said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
According to Popper, a theory can be called scientific by its falsifiability, or refutability, and testability. It must be able to have limitations or else it'll be just another theory. "the more a theory forbids, the better it is."

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
According to Popper, Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science due to it being irrefutable or non-testable. A scientific theory must be able to be testable or else it is just an idea or a plain theory. "they resemble astrology rather than astronomy" was a quote Popper used to explain that astrology and astronomy may be on the same subject, what make one actually science is that astronomy is testable and astrology is based on myth.

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein's theory of relativity is science because it can be refuted. People can proved it wrong by testing it. The fact that it is testable make it science according to Popper.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
the danger of the ad hoc theories is that while it can prevent a theory from being refuted, but with that the theory have a chance of being a "myth" and disregard by the scientific community.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation can be solved by "criterion of falsifiability". This can determine if it is false. If so it is pseudoscience, if not it can be consider science.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?
Induction have an infinite ways of solving it and so it cannot be tested. This led to it being based on ideals rather than experiments.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solved the problem of induction through the use of the principles of empiricism. Through this, a theory can be tested and observe rather than on ideas.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative is the strength of science because it allows us to always be testing a scientific theory, questioning it, changing it. the world around us is ever changing and so will our understanding of science. Because of this, we must learn to be tentative and keep on questioning what we know in order to learn more about the world and how it work.

Cynthia Vo said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?
A theory is scientific if it has been genuinely tested, meaning there were attempts to prove the theory false, and is able to be refuted through various experiments and observations.
2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.
The theory of history, psycho-analysis, and “individual psychology” are not science because they are more related to physical myths than science; they are more attached to individual behaviors than science. For example, Popper presents a situation where a man intentionally pushes a child to drown him versus a man who sacrifices himself to save the drowning child. In Freud’s perspective, the man who had an intention of drowning the child was driven by repression, while the man sacrificing himself was driven by sublimation. Whereas in Alder’s perspective, they both were driven by inferiority. Both of the explanations are considered to be correct according to the human behaviors.
3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.
Einstein’s theory of relativity is considered to be science because at the time, measuring instruments were not reliable, meaning they cannot assure the accuracy of the observation. There might be flaws made using those instruments. As a result, these flaws can be used against the theory to refute it and attempt to prove it false.
4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?
The danger of ad hoc theories is that although it saves these theories from being refuted, it can be decreased in its scientific status or can even be destroyed overall. Because these theories are saved from being refuted, they cannot be revised and made more accurate. As a result, these theories might be considered to be false rather than true.
5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
The problem of demarcation can be solved by falsifiability. There have been difficulties in distinguishing between science and pseudo-science. In order to distinguish theories from these two, they have to be capable of being proven false through experiments and observations.
6. What is the logical problem of induction?
The logical problem of induction is that there are multiple theories being generalized into one principle. The different theories in this one general principle may not be true, therefore making the whole induction to be considered not valid.
7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?
Popper solves the problem of induction by the idea of empiricism, meaning that experiments and observations made to testify the hypotheses eliminates the generalizations made from these inductions.
8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subjective to revisions is the strength of science because it allows room for improvement of the accuracy of the theories. The more experiments that are made to refute and prove the theory false, the more researchers are exposed to the flaws to the theory and can improve it so that it will become more accurate.

Elijah Turner said...

1. What makes a theory scientific?

A theory is scientific when it can be tested, and is not when there is no way to test it.

2. Explain why in Popper’s view Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis and Alfred Adler’s “individual psychology” are not science. Please provide at least one example from the reading in your explanation.

These two theories are not science because in all reality, they can never be tested in a controlled setting because all people are different. You cannot do several trials because they will never come out the same. Karl Popper explained that their theories “had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science.”

3. Explain why Einstein’s theory of relativity is science.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is science is because it can merely be tested, unlike Sigmund Freud’s “Psycho-analysis” theory, or Alfred Adler’s theories.

4. What is the danger of ad hoc theories?

Ad Hoc theories can lead one way off the truth, just because they want to believe in such an odd theory they will believe it even with the slightest bit of evidence.

5. In your words, explain how the problem of demarcation solved?
Demarcation got solved because of the belief that theories could actually be true.

6. What is the logical problem of induction?

The logical problem of induction is that is that it is solely an educated inference, and does not have evidence behind it.

7. How does Popper solve the problem of induction?

Popper solves the problem of induction by saying that the reason for induction is to test whether or not a theory is probable, and deduction concludes the completion.

8. Why is being tentative and subject to revision the strength of science?
Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because if we all just settled for what we had in this world, we would never experience progress in anything. And science is all about new discoveries, and if scientists gave up the drive to discover new, they would not be scientists.

Philip Fortygin said...

1. A theory is considered scientific if it can be tested and if it can be refuted or supported.

2.They are not scientific because they cant really be accurately tested or proved, there are many factors that would go unnoticed. popper says they are more "myths" than actual science.

3.Acording to popper the theory of relativity is scientific because it can be tested and it can be refuted.

4.Adhoc theories are saved from refutation,and can be improbable if they were proved wrong before, they can be often regarded as untrue.

5.Demarcation can be amended by if it can be proved true or false, so if it can proved its science if not than its psuedo science.

6.The logical problem of induction is that it is subject to over-generalization, and is not supported by evidence.

7. He solves the problem by,by justifying by using the idea of empiricism that states that something must be tested and have evidence supporting it.

8. They are the strengths of science becuase without anything being proved wrong we would go no where make no new discoveries, science is the constant pursuit of truth.

so chang said...

1. A theory is scientific if it has been genuinly tested and can be refuted. It also has to has some limitations, if it is not refutable, it's not science.

2. Alder's and Freud's theories are not scientific because they can not be proven false and refuted. For example, when they replied to the situation with the man drowning the child, both were able to shift their theories in a way that it could be true for that human behavior. Since their theories are able to cover all the ground and be "right," it can not be scientific.

3.Einstein's theory of relativity is scientific because it can be tested and refuted.

4. Ad hoc theories are dangerous because they can't be refuted and therefore, can not be false. Because they are saved from refutation, they can not be changed to be better. This results it being considered as false rather than a theory.

5. Demarcation was solved by its refutability/falsifiability. Because Pseudo-science can not be tested to be false through experiments and observations while science can.

6. The problem of induction is that there are multiple theories that makes up a single general principle. One of the different theories may not be true and therefore cause the general principle to also be false.

7. Popper solves the problem of induction by the idea or empiricism, where as long as the theories are proven by multiple experiments and tests, it will remain true.

8.Being tentative and subject to reason are strengths of science because these allow science to be improved upon by other observations and experiments. If we were to give up our new discoveries, we would be stuck in a place where no change is being made.

Gynette Schweitzer said...

1. What makes a theory scientific is if it was formulated by experiments or perhaps formulated from observation. And a theory must be refutable or it has to be possible for the theory to be proved wrong.
2. Popper felt that Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis, and Alfred Alder’s individual psychology weren’t science because they had more to do with social and psychological thinking rather than physical math and experiments and they weren’t refutable. For example, the first man pushes the kid into the lake whereas the second man committed suicide trying to save the child from drowning. Freud and Alder both had very different explanations of why this happened, they shape the theory to fit the way that they believed. Even though no human behavior would have been that way Alder and Freud’s admirer’s followed them. They had an answer for everything and no one has an answer for everything.
3. Einstein’s theory of relativity is science because it cannot be normally observed. It takes measurements and photographs, it is an empirical process. And the results were incompatible with previous theories made before Einstein as well. As where Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psycho-analysis, and Alfred Alder’s individual psychology were compatible with any theory.
4. The danger of ad hoc theories makes a theory unscientific. If a theory cannot be refuted it is not scientific there for it is a danger to try to ad hoc a theory. A theory should be stated once and stay the same including possibility for refutation. And an ad hoc theory is not testable.
5. Induction partially solved the problem demarcation. Induction made a set of rules declaring things to be scientific or non-scientific. The valid induction made it so demarcation was not a big problem anymore but did not completely solve it. There needs to be room for refutability.
6. Logically induction is a problem because it is just inferences from multiple trials and observations. Usually a conclusion is drawn from one trial and has possibility of refutation. And you can never guarantee that a generalization is true.
7. Popper solves the problem of induction by looking at Hume’s discovery (a,b,c) and instead of having them all clash, a and c are fine but c has to do with the principle of empiricism. That way the at theory can only be accepted when it holds up against severest tests. There is no logic or psychological induction.
8. Being tentative and subject to revision is the strength of science because while having empirical theories and doing experiments you have to be open to fails and refutations. You have to be understanding that you will need to revise your theory and willing to change things when it comes to experiments.