Scientific Theories and Progress
Group 3:
• M. Syahid Alfath 1307329
• Tiara Budi Wardani 1300944
• Yustika Sya’bandari` 1306943
International Program on Science Education
Falsification
Invented by Karl Popper (1902-1994)
He argue that 0ne could not prove a
scientific theory to be true simply by
adding new confirming evidence.
He pointed out that scientific theory could
not be compatible with all possible
evidence.
If the theory is to be scientific, then it
must possible for it to be falsified
Popper’s approach to scientific method was
therefore as follows:
Be aware of the problem (e.g. the failure of an
earlier theory)
Propose a solution (i.e. a new theory)
Deduce testable propositions from that theory
Establish a preference from among competing
theories
Certainty or Quest?
Is there a solid basis upon which all our
knowledge can be shown to rest?
The quest for such a basis is generally
termed foundationalism. Some seek it in
pure reason, others in sense experience,
other opt for a foundation in terms of
religious or other authority.
1. If theory needs to be open to the possibility of being falsified,
does that mean that there is no ‘truth’ or ‘reality’, but it is all
down to whatever particular theory we happen to accept at
this moment in time?
2. Is it possible to do science without some certanty upon which
to base one’s work?
Popper has Answered those Questions
He argued for ‘rationally without foundations’. He points out that
we can opt to take rational argument as the basis for our quest
for truth without having any proof or guarantee that rational
argument is a solid foundation.
In taking that view, we can believe that there is ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ as
a gulative idea. Hence, Popper would see the scientist as
someone who is always trying to find the truth about the reality
of what he or she is examining.
To repeat: if it isn’t capable of being falsified, it isn’t science.
Science and Pseudo-Science
"what would have to happen for it to be described as a failure?“
If absolutely nothing counts as a failure, then nothing
merits the title ‘success’ either. In other words so we
need to recognize, that for any claim to be accepted, it
needs to be testable against experience.
Pseudo-science is a claim, belief or practice which is presented
as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method,
lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably
tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
The most obvious example of a pseudoscience is astrology.
Astronomy is regarded as a science because it is based on
observations. Astrology in other hand, is not considered a
science because it is based on a mythological scheme.
So...
The distinction between science and
pseudoscience is therefore essentially one of
method and openess to criticism, rather than
content.
paradigms and ‘normal science’
What is paradigm ?
Narrow sense : a particular achievement which
suggest a way to investigate the world.
Broad sense : a package of ideas and methods which
make up world view and a way of doing science.
Kuhn said that paradigm is a laws and theories which
estabilished within the scientific community and
they are used as a basis for further reserch.
Normal science is a concept originated by Thomas Kuhn
and elaborated in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
[1] The term refers to the regular work of scientists experimenting within
a settled paradigm or explanatory framework.
[2] Regarding science as puzzle-solving,
[3] Kuhn explained normal science as slowly accumulating detail in
accord with established broad theory, without questioning or
challenging the underlying assumptions of that theory.
a particularly controversial aspect of Kuhn's theory is that he claims
that there is no independent evidence by which to decide between
two different paradigms, since all evidence is either intrepreted in
the light of one or in the light of other.
PROGRESS AND THE STATUS
OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY
PROGRESS
Progress (from Latin progressus,
"an advance") is the idea that the world can
become increasingly better in terms of science,
technology, modernization, liberty, democracy,
quality of life, etc
Scientificprogress is the idea
that science increases its problem solving ability
through the application of some scientific
method
WHO AM
I?
Progress is limited perspective given
by paradigm
It’s not claim to be objective
There will be an increase in problem-
solving, which would seem to be
valid and objective way of defining
progress
METHOD AGAINST KUHN STATEMENT
Outlineof Anarchistic Theory of
Knowledge (1975), Paul Feyerabend
(1924-1994)
Progress is misguided and impossible
We cannot achieve “true knowledge”
Imre Lakatos (1922-1974),
science made progress by way
of research programmes, which
were essentially problem
solving activity.
THE STATUS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY
ACCEPTED REJECTED
The pictures or model by which we
attempt to understand the natural
phenomenon are not true or false
but adequate or in adequate.
ACCEPTANCE THEORY
It’s not permanent status
It should be compatible with other
well-established theories
Depend on theory’s ability to predict
successfully, the more its predictions
are confirmed
OCKHAM’S RAZOR’S
PRINCIPLE BY WILLIAM
OF OCKHAM
“One should not multiply
causes beyond necessity”
IN OCKHAM’S BOOK THE ESSENTIAL TENSION (1977) KUHN
SET OUT FIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD SCIENTIFIC
THEORY
1. Accuracy
2. Consistency
3. Scope
4. Simplicity
5. Fruitfulness
If it doesn’t follow those
stipulations, so the scientific theory
will be rejected
Thank you
Discussion Session
Alifa: paradigm
Narrow and broad sense=?
Hanifah: pseudo science
Can we say that “blood type is related with our
personality” is a pseudoscience?
Riana: accepted and rejected
Is it possible to have 2 theories at the same time with the
same theme?
