DISCUSSION: The

conflicting images of
science
Main source: Malaysian
Journal of Science and
Technology Studies
 I. Is science critical or dogmatic in
nature?
Lets start with Karl Popper.
He maintains that science is critical, it makes
science open as opposed to closed.
Expresses the critical nature of science by
way of his idea of falsification
Falsification: critical inquiry and
criticism are attempted falsifications
Only science can be falsified, while pseudo
or non sciences do not possess this
characteristic.
 Take the example theory "all swans are white". Suppose you test this
theory by going to the local pond and observing large birds that look like
swans and there you see one that is black. You might reason as follows:

Theory: All swans are white

Observation: there is a black swan in the middle of the pond
Conclusion: ?

In actual fact you have a number of options at this point:

The theory is falsified - a new theory is needed
The swan in the middle of the pondiswhite, but it's covered in oil so it
appears to be black
The large bird in the middle of the pond is not a swan

Because theories, to be tested, have to be combined with observations,

when the observations conflict with the theory, very often the
observations are discarded rather than the theory!
 you can never justify any scientific theory, but you can falsify it

The Falsification Thesis

He published his first book, Logik der Forschung (
The Logic of Scientific Discovery), in 1934. Here, he criticised
psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism,
and put forth his theory of potential falsifiability as the criterion Sir Karl Raimund Popper (19021994)
demarcating science from non-science.
Scientific theories are never truly verified. Moreover, to be always
verified is not a virtue in a scientific theory
Verification and falsification are asymmetrical:
No accumulation of confirming instances is sufficient to verify a
universal generalization.
But only one disconfirming instance suffices to refute a universal
generalization.
Scientific theories are distinguished by the fact that they are capable
of being refuted. They are falsifiable.
 Now, Thomas Kuhn.
Rejects the Popperian view that science is a critical
enterprise.
Science is characterized by the absence of
disagreement over fundamentals and the
establishment of normal science
Characterized more by dogmatism rather than
criticism.
Criticism and arguments only exist during pre-
paradigmatic stage or during the transition to a new
paradigm, not during the period of normal science
 II. The rationality of scientific
change
Kuhn: theory/ paradigm change= irrational
Popper: scientific change to criticism is rational
Criticism offers good reasons and evidence against the
existing position, and the theory is finally accepted is the
one which withstand criticism.
Rationality of scientific change: ..a scientific
revolution, however radical, cannot break with
tradition, since it must preserve the success of its
predecessors. That is why scientific revolutions
are rational.
The new theory is capable to show where the old theory
went wrong, and perhaps to show the old theory as a
limiting case of the new.
 Kuhn: why irrational?
Incommensurability
Theories/ paradigms are incommensurable
There is no basis for comparison since they are
referring to two different worlds
There is no rational and objective basis for saying
that the new theory is better than the old.
Even though arguments, experimental results and
anomalies do serve a function in theory change,
their function is limited to that of stage-setting.
 Incommensurability is related to
gestalt switch
Gestalt switch: a transformation in
our perception of the phenomena
 III. Truth and theory-change in
science
Critical process of inquiry- leads us
towards the truth
The change from one scientific
theory to another, for example from
Galileo to Newton to Einstein , is a
change which brings us closer and
closer towards the truth regarding
the physical or natural world.
The concept of verisimilitude
(truth likeness)
 Verisimilitude
Every scientific theory has a truth-content and
falsify content, and scientific change leads to
an increase in truth-content without a
corresponding increase in falsify content
The intuitive idea behind the definition is that
A is closer to the truth than B if it has more
true consequences and fewer false
consequences. That is, A not only says more
about what is true, but by having fewer false
consequences, is less falsifiable at the same
time.
 The intuitive idea behind the
definition is that A is closer to the
truth than B if it has more true
consequences and fewer false
consequences. That is, A not only
says more about what is true, but by
having fewer false consequences, is
less falsifiable at the same time.
 Kuhn:
Darwinian concept of theory-change, in
which theory-change does not lead to any
predetermined destination, but is a matter
of adaptation
Theory change does not imply progress in
science, but it is only progress in the
pragmatic sense of an improvement in
problem/puzzling-solving, not in the realist
sense of bringing us closer to the truth.
 IV. Popper and Kuhn on Scientific
Realism
Popper: a scientific realist
Theory-changes in science brings us
closer to the truth
Kuhn: not a scientific realist
Only improvement in problem/puzzling-
solving
Theories are not description of reality