University of Illinois at Chicago Philosophy of Science Essay

User Generated

funl444

Humanities

University of Illinois at Chicago

Description

Topic 

Popper describes good scientific practice as involving scientists putting forward bold conjectures and then attempting to refute those conjectures. Explain what a bold conjecture is and how conjectures can be refuted. Why does Popper think scientists should seek to refute their conjectures rather than confirm them and why does he think that aiming at refutation produce better science? Be sure to not only explain Popper’s reasoning but to evaluate it. 

One criticism of Popper’s method focuses on the role of auxiliary hypotheses in hypothesis testing. Explain this criticism and evaluate it. Another criticism is that Popper has no explanation for when we should put more trust in one hypothesis rather than another. Explain this criticism and evaluate it. For both criticisms be sure to consider possible responses by Popper to the criticism and evaluate those responses.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

From: Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York, Harper & Row. From: Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York, Harper & Row. Conjecture and refutation Falsfiability in practice • Childbed fever is caused by transfer of cadaveric matter • Is that theory falsifiable? Falsfiability in practice • Childbed fever is caused by transfer of cadaveric matter • To test it we need to add auxiliary hypotheses • • Suppose we arrange the test and the prediction is wrong • • Cadaveric matter is destroyed by chlorinated lime What’s been falsified? Logic doesn’t answer that question Falsfiability in practice • Human color vision doesn’t change with the season • Perform detailed tests of color vision at different times of year • There is variation in the results of the test • Our hypothesis is falsified? • But there are auxiliary hypotheses • • For this to be a test we need to assume that the test equipment is always measuring in the same way And it turns out that common test equipment is temperature sensitive • And lab temperature varies with time of year Falsifiability and probability • Many scientific theories predict the probability of some event occurring • Not the unqualified occurrence of some event • The probability of tails coming up twice in a row is 1/4 • The probability of the electron tunneling through the energy barrier is .001 • Are these predictions falsifiable? Falsifiability and probability • • • The probability of heads with a fair coin is .5 and this is a fair coin • Flip the coin five times • TTTTT That sequence of flips doesn’t falsify my hypothesis • According to my hypothesis it’s unlikely but not impossible • The probability is 1/32 No matter how often I flip the coin I won’t falsify the hypothesis • • The sequence may be very unlikely but never impossible Probabilistic hypotheses are not falsifiable Scientific method • Set aside the demarcation problem • • Falsifiability doesn’t really draw the line between science and everything else in the right place What is it that scientists should do according to Popper? • Not try to verify theories (or even confirm them) • Scientists should make conjectures • And then attempt to refute them Conjecture • Science proceeds by scientists making conjectures • • “Scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions—conjectures boldly put forward…” (Popper, 46) Good conjecture are bold hypotheses • A hypothesis is bold if it is risky • It rules out many possible outcomes • Popper sometimes puts this counterintuitively: scientist should put forward improbable hypotheses • But improbable hypotheses in his sense are just ones that take more empirical risk • Rule out more possibilities Refutation • Once a scientist arrives at a conjecture then her goal should be to refute it • Derive experiments which could show it to be false • The scientific attitude requires that scientists do their best to falsify their own hypotheses • If a hypothesis isn’t refuted by an experiment then the scientist should try again to falsify it • And again and again until it has been falsified Refutation and conjecture • If a hypothesis is falsified then the scientist should propose a new, risky, conjecture • One that takes into account previous results but makes new, substantive, empirical claims • And then the process continues with attempts to refute the new hypothesis • So scientific progress consists of a series of hypotheses with falsified ones replaced by new ones • But no hypothesis is ever proved to be true Popper’s theory of confirmation • Hypotheses are not confirmed by successfully passing experimental tests Popper’s missing theory of confirmation • Hypotheses are not confirmed by successfully passing experimental tests • A hypothesis that has successfully survived a long series of experimental test is not more confirmed then one that hasn’t been tested at all • • There is no more reason to believe that a theory that has been successfully tested is true then the one that has never been tested Popper is an inductive sceptic • Observation only gives us reason to reject hypotheses, never reason to accept them
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer:
2400 Words
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Conjectures and Refutations Outline
I.

Introduction


II.

Conjectures and Refutations
Bold Conjectures and How Conjectures can be Refuted



Bold conjectures



Refutation

III.

Why Scientists Should Seek to Refute Their Conjectures Rather than Confirm Them

IV.

Why Aiming at Refutation produces better Results

V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.

Role of Auxiliary Hypotheses in Hypothesis Testing
Possible Responses and Evaluation of Responses
Preferences of One Hypothesis over Others
Possible Responses and Evaluation of Responses
Conclusion


Conje
by A Alfred

Submission date: 27-Feb-2020 12:44AM (UTC-0500)
Submission ID: 1265095497
File name: Conjectures_and_Refutations.docx (26.35K)
Word count: 2430
Character count: 13395

Conje
ORIGINALITY REPORT

6

%

SIMILARITY INDEX

3%

4%

6%

INTERNET SOURCES

PUBLICATIONS

STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
2
3
4
5

2%

whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com
Internet Source

2%

Submitted to University of Nevada Reno
Student Paper

1%

Submitted to University of Canterbury
Student Paper

1%

Submitted to Florida State University
Student Paper

1%

link.springer.com
Internet Source

Exclude quotes

Off

Exclude bibliography

Off

Exclude matches

Off


Running head: CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

Conjectures and Refutations
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

1

CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

2

Conjectures and Refutations
Science is based on research and proven hypotheses. Scientific concepts emerge from
repetitive research conducted by different researchers to determine the validity of the information
provided by those who conducted similar studies before them. Karl Popper focused much of his
philosophical work in attempting to differentiate between scientific theories from myths and
other non-scientific ideologies. His philosophy addresses the need for a criterion that could be
used to categorize scientific information from non-scientific theories. Through his work, he also
questions the existing empirical, non-empirical, and pseudo-empirical methods used to
differentiate these theories and their effectiveness.
Bold Conjectures and How Conjectures can be Refuted
According to Popper, all scientific theories are naturally conjectures and inherently weak
or imperfect. Bold conjectures in science are obtained after refutations have been carried out to
prove or disapprove the hypothesis or identified theory. Based on his philosophical work, any
theories that survived numerous rebuttals would be considered as having higher credibility or
authenticity, making it a bold conjecture (Popper, 1965).
Popper’s example of his experience with Alfred Adler illustrated how a conjecture could
be proven right in science. Adler was able to analyze a situation presented to him by Popper
because of his clinical experience, which enabled him to make a specific claim that was related
to his past theories. Adler’s conjecture can be proven based on the argument that even though
patients might present with the same symptoms and get positive results after being tested for the
same condition, each clinical case is different. The variations in clinical cases can be based on
age differences, geographical location, immunity, the existence of other opportunistic infections,

CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

3

and different receptions towards the treatment plan. As such, Adler’s theory of basing the case
that Popper presented to him on his clinical experience can be refuted on the basis that altho...


Anonymous
Very useful material for studying!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags