Kuhn, Popper, and Feyerabend have debated whether science is a distinct kind of activity

Popper

Popper argues that the inductive inference is an invalid form of inference and that scientific theories are
not in fact derived from observation. He preferred a view of science based on critical rationalism, and
argued that science consisted of conjectures and refutations.

He argues that theories are general and refer to all occurrences of a phenomenon in the past, present,
and future. But observation is always finite and we can never know whether the instances we have not
observed will resemble those we have.

For Popper, what is crucial Is that, although theories cannot be proved, they can be refuted, and the
refutability of scientific theories is what demarcates real sciences from what he calls pseudo-sciences.
For Popper, there is a plurality of theories, where people are able to discuss even without having the
same framework.

Kuhn

Kuhn does not accept that there is a set of principles for the comparison of and choice between
competing theories. He argues that mature sciences are characterized by paradigms. He emphasized that
the paradigm is a shared view of the discipline and the world it seeks to investigate as well as set of
methods for such an investigation. For him, everyday science is normal science or science as it is
practiced within the confines of a paradigm. Scientists reformulate paradigms in order for its concepts to
fit their study when it is impossible, therefore a paradigm shift occurs.

Feyerabend

For Paul Feyerabend, Science does not produce better knowledge. He contends that it is a myth that
science is characterized by skepticism and open-ness. He encourages diversity of thought . He argued
that there is no scientific method or, in his words, "anything goes." Without regard to rational guidelines,
scientists do whatever they need to in order to come up with new ideas and persuade others to accept
them.

For Alexander, theory is a generalization separated from a particular, an abstraction separated from a
concrete case. Theories and facts have a reciprocal relationship but it does not mean that one creates
the other. Theories are generated as much as by the nonfactual or non-empirical processes that precede
scientific contact with the real world as they are by the real world structure. These non- empirical
presuppositions consist of traditions that constitute theories. He has intellectual debts from Popper, who
also advocated the importance of theory over observation. For Calhoun,

Calhoun on theories

For Calhoun,

1. Theory is seen as an orderly system of tested propositions,

2. Theory is a logically integrated causal explanation.
 3. Theories as theoretical orientations or perspectives. He believes that most of what we take to be
the facts of social science, and indeed the criteria for evaluating both facts and explanations, are
themselves constituted in part through theory. It enables us to make observations and thus
convert sensory impressions into understandings we can appropriate as facts. Having intellectual
debts from Kuhn and popper, we assume that all science is normal science and theory will
always be prioritized over observation. They leave no room for revolutionary science even
though they bring significant changes to the way we see the world.

Dimensionss own intellectual activity depends

1st dimension

A critical engagement with the theorists contemporary social world, recognizing that the existing state
of affairs does not exhaust all possibilities, and offering positive implications for social action. This
dimension calls for denaturalizing the human world, recognizing it as a product of human action.

Philistinism

How to combat Philistinism

2nd Dimension

A critical account of the historical and cultural conditions on which the theorists ow intellectual activity
depends. This calls for an account of the accomplishments and the particularities of history that make
possible the vision of the contemporary theorist.

3rd Dimension

A continuous critical re-examination of the constitutive categories and conceptual frameworks of the
theorists understanding, including the historical construction of those frameworks. This calls for
historical analyses of the ways in which ideas come to take on specific significances, to be embedded in
different intellectual contexts and projects, and to be invested with certain sorts of references to the
world of experience and practice.

4th Dimension

A critical confrontation with other works of social explanation that not only establishes their good and
bad points but shows the reasons behind their blind spots and misunderstandings, and demonstrates
the capacity to incorporate their insights on stronger foundations. Calls for the approach on past
theories not just as exemplars but as works bounded by or based on different histories from our own.