Carnap And Popper On Defarcation Analysis

It is possible to agree both with Carnap and Popper on the question of demarcation.

In general, it is not possible to agree with both Carnap and Popper on the question of demarcation of scientific science statements and unscientific statements.
First, let us start by pointing out what their opinions are on demarcations. Carnap’s opinion on the demarcation of differentiating scientific statements and unscientific statements is to see if it’s verifiable. Which means whether it can be tested or not, directly or indirectly. If the statement is an observational statement, it can be tested directly, we could easily see it’s observational terms, like smell, shape, color, etc. If it’s a theoretical statement, we can try to use different observational
Taking the two example above, the two statements “There’s a 50 percent chance that it’s going to rain tomorrow.” and “Tomorrow is a rainy day.” Would have a same result from Carnap which says the demarcation of science is to see if it is verifiable. The second statement can be easily verified by checking if tomorrow is a rainy day or not. For the first one, the statement does not depend on observations, no matter what we observe, we still don’t know if the statement is true or not, and thus this statement is not a scientific statement since not
The two statements of “There’s a 50 percent chance that it’s going to rain tomorrow” and “Tomorrow is a rainy day”. Carnap agrees that the second one is scientific because it is verifiable, it can be tested directly or indirectly. However, when we test something out, first we need to be certain that what we are testing is trustable, trustworthy and believable, otherwise the whole testing procedure would have been meaningless if we are not even sure the result of the test. How we test is by observations, is through our senses or through other tools. Carnap’s opinion on this is “Only singular propositions that describe our experience can be absolute certain.” Nonetheless, experiences are gained from human mind. If we want to make sure that what we experienced are trustworthy, we have to first believe that our mind is a proper tool that gives us only correct information. Taking this to Popper, Popper does not believe anything to be infallible, even human mind. What if our mind fools us and give us wrong information about what we actually experienced? If we do some experiments on human mind to prove that it gives us the correct information, how could we trust this experiments since we are not sure of our mind at the first place? This ends up in a virtuous cycle. There is no way we could know the solution of this