Science: Conjectures and Refutations – by Sir Karl Popper

In Sir Karl Popper's essay "Science: Conjectures and Refutations," the author delves
into his work in the philosophy of science, particularly focusing on the demarcation
problem – the challenge of distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. Popper was
motivated by the desire to establish a criterion for the scientific status of theories,
differentiating between empirical, scientific methods and non-empirical or pseudo-empirical
methods. He emphasized the significance of falsifiability as the criterion for scientific
status, stating that a genuine scientific theory should be capable of being refuted by
observation or experiment. Popper's argument centers on the idea that empirical evidence,
obtained through risky predictions and attempted refutations, is crucial for the acceptance
of scientific theories.

On the other hand, John Ziman's essay "What Is Science?" explores the nature of
science as public knowledge. Ziman argues that science is a conscious artifact of mankind,
with a definable scope and content, and recognizable professional practitioners. He
emphasizes that science is not just a body of knowledge but a social activity, highlighting
its public and consensible1 nature. Ziman challenges the conventional philosophical
approach to science and asserts that scientific knowledge must survive critical study and
testing by other competent individuals, leading to a consensus of rational opinion over a
wide field. He stresses that scientific research is a practical art, learned through imitation
and experience, and is a social activity that depends on the interactions and
communications between scientists.

Both essays provide valuable insights into the philosophy of science, focusing on the
demarcation problem and the social nature of scientific knowledge. Popper's work
emphasizes the criterion of falsifiability as essential for the scientific status of theories,
while Ziman's essay highlights the public and consensual nature of scientific knowledge,
emphasizing science as a social activity. These perspectives contribute to a nuanced
understanding of the multifaceted nature of science and its significance in the broader
intellectual and societal context.

Possible questions:
1. What is the distinction between science and pseudoscience according to Karl
Popper?

According to Karl Popper, the distinction between science and pseudoscience lies in the
criterion of falsifiability. Popper proposed that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be
capable of being refuted by observation or experiment. In other words, a genuine scientific theory
should make risky predictions that can be tested and potentially proven false. On the other hand,
pseudoscience, such as astrology, may appeal to observation and experiment but does not meet
scientific standards as it does not allow for the possibility of being falsified. Popper's emphasis on
falsifiability as the demarcation criterion highlights the importance of empirical evidence and critical
testing in distinguishing between scientific and non-scientific theories.

2. How does John Ziman define the nature of science?

John Ziman defines the nature of science as a conscious artifact of mankind with well-documented
historical origins, a definable scope and content, and recognizable professional practitioners and
exponents. He emphasizes that science is rigorous, methodical, academic, logical, and practical, and it is a
major part of the stock of our minds, with its products being the furniture of our surroundings. Ziman also
highlights the corporate nature of the scientific enterprise, emphasizing that it is not merely an individual
pursuit but a collective effort involving a group of individuals who check and contribute to each other's
work. Additionally, he stresses that scientific knowledge must be public and consensible, and it must
survive critical study and testing by other competent and disinterested individuals, leading to a consensus
of rational opinion over a wide field. Overall, Ziman's definition of science encompasses its intellectual,
psychological, and social dimensions, emphasizing its practical, methodical, and consensual nature.

1
an agreement amongst scientists that with regard to certain problems “a consensus is possible and desirable”
Science: Conjectures and Refutations – by Sir Karl Popper

3. What is the significance of public consensus in the definition of

science by John Ziman?

The significance of public consensus in John Ziman's definition of science lies in the idea
that scientific knowledge must not only survive critical study and testing by other competent
and disinterested individuals but also be almost universally accepted. Ziman emphasizes
that the objective of science is to achieve a consensus of rational opinion over the widest
possible field. This highlights the social and consensual nature of scientific knowledge,
indicating that it is not merely a matter of individual belief or subjective interpretation. By
requiring widespread acceptance and consensus, Ziman underscores the public and
consensible aspect of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that it is a collective endeavor that
depends on the interactions and communications between scientists. This approach aligns
with the view that science is a social activity, and its validity is determined by the agreement
and critical evaluation of the scientific community. Therefore, public consensus plays a crucial
role in defining the nature of science according to John Ziman.

4. How does the social aspect of science influence the way scientific knowledge is
acquired and disseminated?
The social aspect of science significantly influences the acquisition and dissemination of
scientific knowledge. According to John Ziman's essay "What Is Science?", scientific research is
described as a social activity, and the behavior of scientists towards one another, their
organizational structure, and the flow of information between them are crucial in understanding
the nature of science. Ziman emphasizes that young scientists learn through imitation and
experience a number of conventions that embody strong social relationships, rather than formal
logic. This highlights the role of social interactions and shared conventions in shaping the scientific
process.
Furthermore, Ziman points out that scientific knowledge must be public and consensible, and it
must survive critical study and testing by other competent and disinterested individuals, leading
to a consensus of rational opinion over a wide field. This underscores the importance of the
scientific community in evaluating and validating knowledge, indicating that scientific knowledge
is not merely a matter of individual belief but is shaped by collective scrutiny and acceptance.
Moreover, Ziman discusses the complex inner relationships between the intellectual,
psychological, and sociological aspects of science, highlighting the intertwined nature of these
dimensions. He argues that scientific knowledge is inevitably created by individual men and
women, and therefore has a strong psychological aspect, but it is also public and molded by social
relations between individuals. This underscores the influence of social dynamics on the creation,
validation, and dissemination of scientific knowledge.
In summary, the social aspect of science plays a fundamental role in shaping the way scientific
knowledge is acquired and disseminated, emphasizing the significance of social relationships,
consensus-building, and collective validation within the scientific community.

1
an agreement amongst scientists that with regard to certain problems “a consensus is possible and desirable”