L9: Popper, Kuhn, & Lakatos

Question 1

Name the three scholars and their perspectives.

Answer 1

• Popper = What is ‘good’ science?
• Kuhn = What is ‘normal’ science?
• Lakatos= Can we figure out a middle ground? (what is good science in the context of normal science? )

Question 2

The three thinkers were grappling with a tension between internal and external considerations when discussing science and knowledge claims. What is the difference between these considerations?

Answer 2

Internal is more about how to do good science, what makes good knowledge claims?

External is more about considerations that impact internal ones. How does science actually happen?
* group norms, beliefs and values
* impact of community surround scientfic practice on individual scientist.

Question 3

What was Karl Popper concerned about?

Answer 3

The internal dynamics of science, i.e. what is good science?
- demarcation
- falsification
- corroboration

Question 4

describe Freud and Einstein and explain how notions of theory differ / the risks of theory.

Answer 4

Freud: ID, ego, superego
Einstein: general relativity & space-time-gravity.

Einstein’s science is riskier, since this has more risk not to be proven. To what extent whould we call science to finding evidence to support our theory? Vs designing research and projects that actually attempt to falsify that theory.

Question 5

What is demarcation?

Answer 5

Not all disciplines or field of knowledge can be called science. We demarcate science and scientific claims by assessing whether or not a given claim can be falisified.

The main criterion that demarcates (differentiates) scientific claims from any other knowledge claim is that scientific claims are built on falsification.

Question 6

How does the falsification principle relate to deductive reasoning?

Answer 6

Deductive reasoning says if we accept the premise(s) as true, the conclusions must be true. In its earliest form, not even dependent on observations.

Popper argues that Observations can ‘test’ deductive claims.

Question 7

How does the falsification principle relate to inductive reasoning?

Answer 7

It relates to the problem of inductive reasoning: There is always to possibility that one observation makes the theory false. One can thus never make a general claim or law based on induction.

Question 8

Give an example of falsification + deductive reasoning.

Answer 8

• General theory is all swans are white. [P1 –I accept as true]
• I see a bird that is a swan. [P2 –observation is true]
• I see that swan is black. [ C –false]

Question 9

What did observations do with deductive reasoning?

Answer 9

It put it to the test. It led to the fact that people started to realize something might be wrong with their theory because if an observation proves the theory to be false, then the theory is wrong.

Question 10

What effect does falsification have?

Answer 10

We come up with better knowledge claims than would be possible only through deductive or inductive reasoning.

Question 11

Explain the difference between logical positivists and Poppers approach.

Answer 11

When observations confirm a theory, LPs assume that they have then verified the claim. But verification is impossible. Popper says: we’ve corroborated the claim. They found support after trying to falsify the claim.

Question 12

Summarize Poppers approach: critical rationalism.

Answer 12

• We use falsification and corroboration to make good claims.
• This process demarcates scientific endeavoursfrom other intellectual fields/disciplines.
• Altogether, to be a good scientist, one needs to engage in Critical Rationalism.

Question 13

Explain the difference between critical rationalism and rationalism.

Answer 13

Rationalism is linked to deductive reasoning (its true because its logically true), while critical rationalism argues it’s logically true, but can also be EMPIRICALLY PROVEN TO BE FALSE. In this sense, the critical rationalism appraoch does not accept a logical, deductively made claim as true without an attempt to falsify.

Question 14

tell me how critical rationalism was adopted by students/scholars.

Answer 14

1. Articulate a general theory
2. Develop falsifiable predictions (null
   + alternative hypotheses)
3. Collect data using proven methods
   (make observations)
4. Interpret results (falsify or
   corroborate the theory)
5. Reflect and improve or corroborate
   the theory, methods, etc.

Question 15

What did Thomas Kuhn do?

Answer 15

He investigated the external dynamics of science….context… and what is actually normal science….

Question 16

WHat did Kuhn find?

Answer 16

A scientist is not only a
‘truth seeker’but also(andforemost) a human being who likes success and admiration…..and who is part of a scientific community (a social animal)

Question 17

What is normal science dependent on?

Answer 17

• community structure: these are not critcally challenged or reflected upon, which enables scientists to produce.
• group commitments

Question 18

Explain Kuhn’s scientific paradigm.

Answer 18

Structural framework that structures scientists’ thoughts and work. A set of convictions, personal interests, ways of posing questions, investigating them and answering them.

Question 19

What did Imre Lakatos do/think?

Answer 19

He integrated the approaches by Popper and Kuhn into research programmes. There seems to be a conflict between the ideal of
Falsificationversus the reality of Normal Science

“Is there a way to say that scientists are not all hypocrites (say one thing and do another)? Can Popper and Kuhn both be right? –> research programmes”.

Question 20

What does a research programme consist of?

Answer 20

• unquestioned theoretical assumptions of the community
• more marginal hypotheses that can be tested and falsifield.

Question 21

When is a RP empirically progressive?

Answer 21

if the extra observed phenomenon becomes part of the new body of evidence, and hence, the theory.