You are on page 1of 2

Q(01) i. How did Karl Popper demarcate science from non-science?

Popper explained the demarcation of science from non-science using his concept ‘falsification’.
According to Popper any statement or set of statements is scientific if and only if that
statement or set of statements is falsifiable. If any statement or set of statements is not
falsifiable, then that is not scientific. He also maintained that a more falsifiable theory is a
better theory.

Popper had figured it out before long: The non-scientific theories could not be falsified. They
were not testable in a legitimate way. There was no possible objection that could be raised
which would show the theory to be wrong.

In a true science, the following statement can be easily made: “If x happens, it would show
demonstrably that theory y is not true.” We can then design an experiment, a physical one or
sometimes a simple thought experiment, to figure out if x actually does happen. It’s the
opposite of looking for verification; we must try to show the theory is incorrect, and if we fail to
do so, thereby strengthen it.

Popper saw a problem with the number of theories he considered non-scientific that, on their surface,
seemed to have a lot in common with good, hard, rigorous science. But the question of how we decide
which theories are compatible with the scientific method and those which are not, was harder than it

It is most common to say that science is done by collecting observations and grinding out theories from
them. This is a popularly accepted notion. We observe, observe, and observe, and we look for theories
to best explain the mass of facts. (Although even this is not really true: Popper points out that we must
start with some a priori knowledge to be able to generate new knowledge. Observation is always done
with some hypotheses in mind–we can’t understand the world from a totally blank slate.)

The problem, as Popper saw it, is that some bodies of knowledge more properly named pseudoscience
would be considered scientific if the “Observe & Deduce” operating definition were left alone. For
example, a believing astrologist can ably provide you with “evidence” that their theories are sound. The
biographical information of a great many people can be explained this way, they’d say.

The astrologist would tell you, for example, about how “Leos” seek to be the centre of attention;
ambitious, strong, seeking the limelight. As proof, they might follow up with a host of real-life Leos:
World-leaders, celebrities, politicians, and so on. In some sense, the theory would hold up. The
observations could be explained by the theory, which is how science works, right

iii. How did Popper explain the progress of science using the concept

Karl Popper believes that science does not necessarily seek to unveil the truth. He does not
assert that the unending formulations and testing of hypothesis or theories will ultimately
generate truth or certainty. On the other hand, the image that science likes to project of itself is
that of rationality per excellence. Armed with a special tool called the “scientific method”, the
institution of science believes it now possess the tool with which it could now generate logic of
justification and certainty. This tool or method is what Magee calls “the Hallmark of
science”.This study examines the rationality of the claims of the scientific enterprise in the light
of Kuhn‟s, Feyerabend‟s and Popper‟s conception of “Verisimilitude”with the view to showing
how problematic the whole idea is. In all, we shall present Poppers‟ verisimilitude concept as a
more rational ideology that the scientific enterprise should adopt in place of what is presently
conceived as the hallmark of science