Learning goals tutorial 3

a) Popper’s Idealized View of Cumulative Progress:

Conjecture: According to Popper, scientific progress begins with the formulation

of bold conjectures or hypotheses. These hypotheses should be testable and
falsifiable, meaning there must be a way to prove them wrong.

Testing: The next step involves subjecting these hypotheses to rigorous

empirical testing through experiments or observations. Popper emphasized the
importance of empirical falsifiability - a scientific statement should be testable in
a way that it could be proven false if it is indeed false.

Error-Correction/Generalization: If a hypothesis survives numerous attempts

at falsification, it gains corroborative support. However, scientific theories are
never confirmed; they are only provisionally accepted until further testing. If a
hypothesis is falsified, it is rejected, and scientists must revise or replace it with a
new conjecture.

b) Challenges to Popper’s View:

Inductivism Critique: Critics argue that science doesn't work purely by

falsification. The inductive process of accumulating evidence for a theory is also
vital. For instance, confirming evidence doesn't necessarily prove a theory true,
but it contributes to its acceptance.

Underdetermination Problem: The underdetermination thesis suggests that

evidence alone cannot uniquely determine a theory. Multiple theories may
explain the same set of observations, making it challenging to falsify a theory
definitively.

Theory-laden Observation: The interpretation of empirical evidence is

influenced by the theoretical framework, leading to a circular relationship
between theory and observation.

Arguments Favoring Popper:

Empirical Rigor: Popper’s approach emphasizes rigorous empirical testing,

fostering objectivity and reducing confirmation bias.

Prevention of Dogmatism: Falsifiability prevents scientists from becoming

overly attached to theories, promoting openness to change in the face of
contrary evidence.

Learning goals tutorial 3 1

 Arguments Against Popper:

Scientific Realism: Some argue that successful predictions and explanations

lend credence to the truth of a theory, challenging strict falsifiability.

Scientific Method as a Blend: Many scientists and philosophers argue that

science incorporates elements of both falsification and verification, rejecting strict
adherence to either.

c) Problems Inherent in Science as a Societal Institution:

Funding Pressures: The need for funding can influence research directions,
potentially steering scientists away from riskier, groundbreaking research.

Publication Bias: Journals may favor positive results, leading to underreporting

of negative findings and distorting the scientific record.

Competitive Nature: Scientists may be driven by career advancement, leading

to a competitive environment that may discourage collaboration and information
sharing.

d) Science’s Intrinsic Potential for Self-Correction:

Community Scrutiny: The scientific community plays a crucial role in self-

correction through peer review, replication studies, and open discourse.

Reproducibility Crisis: Recent concerns about the reproducibility of scientific

studies highlight the challenges in self-correction. Addressing this crisis requires
changes in research practices and increased transparency.

In conclusion, while Popper's idealized view provides a valuable framework for

understanding scientific progress, it is essential to recognize the nuanced reality of
scientific practice and the societal context in which science operates. The scientific
method is a powerful tool, but acknowledging and addressing its limitations is crucial
for maintaining and improving the integrity of scientific inquiry.

Learning goals tutorial 3 2