Philosophy Assignment
According to Kuhn, what is wrong with Popper’s account of the scientific method? Is Kuhn’s criticism successful?
I will begin by looking at how Popper defines his scientific method in relation to knowledge then, I will consider Kuhn 's criticism of this view and whether or not it is substantive.
Popper is concerned with how knowledge is acquired and developed. He distinguishes off from belief and works with a series of conjectures and refutations to build hypothesis about our acquisition of knowledge. Kuhn on the other hand focuses on two key ideas 'normal science ' ( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p 140) and scientific revolutions. Very different approaches and Kuhn is critical of Popper in terms of his theory sitting within normal science and so not contributing towards the development of knowledge and learning. Below I will look at these different approaches and the grounds for Kuhn 's criticism and whether it is successful or not.
Popper is concerned with deductive processes in terms of scientific knowledge and that we can apply regularities to that which we observe( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p 113). For Popper the creative instance when we have a go at seeing regularities around us and form hypothesis as to how nature works. Along with these we will have expectations of what we have on mind( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p112). This is for him the start of knowledge( ref). However, at this point these conjectures could be true or false and the next step is to work out which they are. This is the start of building up a process of scientific knowledge. For Popper it is in working with the process of conjectures( hypothesis), and the corroboration or refutation of these that begins to provide the tests he sets to establish scientific knowledge. From observations we can draw up a conjecture which is then the basis of an argument and from this we can deduce the consequences of it. So for example:-
Premise. All cats
I will begin by looking at how Popper defines his scientific method in relation to knowledge then, I will consider Kuhn 's criticism of this view and whether or not it is substantive.
Popper is concerned with how knowledge is acquired and developed. He distinguishes off from belief and works with a series of conjectures and refutations to build hypothesis about our acquisition of knowledge. Kuhn on the other hand focuses on two key ideas 'normal science ' ( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p 140) and scientific revolutions. Very different approaches and Kuhn is critical of Popper in terms of his theory sitting within normal science and so not contributing towards the development of knowledge and learning. Below I will look at these different approaches and the grounds for Kuhn 's criticism and whether it is successful or not.
Popper is concerned with deductive processes in terms of scientific knowledge and that we can apply regularities to that which we observe( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p 113). For Popper the creative instance when we have a go at seeing regularities around us and form hypothesis as to how nature works. Along with these we will have expectations of what we have on mind( C. Chimisso, chapter 4, knowledge, p112). This is for him the start of knowledge( ref). However, at this point these conjectures could be true or false and the next step is to work out which they are. This is the start of building up a process of scientific knowledge. For Popper it is in working with the process of conjectures( hypothesis), and the corroboration or refutation of these that begins to provide the tests he sets to establish scientific knowledge. From observations we can draw up a conjecture which is then the basis of an argument and from this we can deduce the consequences of it. So for example:-
Premise. All cats
Bibliography: Chimisso, Cristina, knowledge, Exploring Philosophy, The Open Univerity, 2011 Cottingham,J(ed), Western Philosophy, an Anthology, Blackwell, 2008