popper

Why does Popper believe no inductivist account of science is possible?

He argues that induction cannot logically justify universal scientific claims, so science cannot be based on induction.

What is the problem of induction?

The problem of explaining how observations of particular cases can logically justify a universal scientific claim.

Why does Popper think the problem of induction is serious?

No finite number of observations can logically prove a universal claim, and the principle used to justify induction cannot itself be justified without relying on induction.

Why does Popper believe the principle of induction is required to justify inductive hypotheses?

Inductive reasoning needs a principle explaining why observations of the past justify expectations about future cases.

Why does Popper believe the principle of induction cannot be justified by logic?

Inductive conclusions do not follow necessarily from their premises, so logic alone cannot establish that induction is reliable.

Why does Popper believe the principle of induction cannot be justified by observation?

Using observations to establish that induction is reliable would itself rely on induction, making the argument circular.

Why does Popper believe induction cannot increase the probability that a hypothesis is true?

He argues that saying observations make a hypothesis more probable still depends on an unjustified principle of induction.

What is Popper's alternative to induction?

Scientists should use deduction to derive predictions from hypotheses and then try to falsify those hypotheses.

What is the problem of demarcation?

The problem of determining what separates science from non-science or pseudoscience.

What are confirmations?

Observations or evidence that agree with a hypothesis.

What are verifications?

Conclusive demonstrations that a hypothesis or theory is true.

What are risky predictions?

Predictions that could turn out to be false and therefore expose a theory to a genuine possibility of failure.

What is the difference between irrefutability and refutability?

An irrefutable theory cannot be shown false by any possible observation, while a refutable theory can be contradicted by some possible observation.

What is a genuine test of a hypothesis?

A test in which the hypothesis makes a risky prediction that could actually fail.

What is falsifiability?

The property of a theory that makes it possible for some observation to show that the theory is false.

What does it mean for a theory to be falsifiable?

It means that there is some possible observation or result that could contradict the theory.

What does it mean for a theory to be falsified?

It means that an appropriate test has produced evidence contradicting the theory.

What is corroboration?

The status of a theory that has survived serious attempts to falsify it.

What is a conventional twist?

A change or adjustment made to a theory or its assumptions to protect it from being falsified.

Why does Popper believe Einstein's theory of relativity is scientific?

It makes risky predictions that could potentially be shown false through observation.

What role do Eddington's eclipse observations play in Popper's argument?

They provided a test of a risky prediction made by Einstein's theory and showed how a scientific theory can expose itself to possible falsification.

Why does Popper believe astrology is not a science?

He argues that astrology does not make sufficiently risky predictions because its claims can be interpreted to fit many possible outcomes.

Why does Popper believe psychoanalysis is not a science?

He argues that psychoanalytic explanations can account for almost any behavior, making them difficult or impossible to falsify.

Does Popper believe astrology and psychoanalysis are intellectually meaningless or worthless?

No. His claim is that they are not sciences because they lack the required falsifiability, not that they have no meaning or value.

How does Ayer's view of science differ from Popper's view?

Ayer gives science a privileged status through verification and meaningful empirical claims, while Popper gives science a privileged status through falsifiability and the possibility of refutation.

How does Bacon's narrow inductivist conception compare with Hempel's method of hypothesis?

Bacon emphasizes deriving generalizations from observations, while Hempel emphasizes proposing hypotheses and testing their consequences.

How does Hempel's method of hypothesis compare with Popper's falsificationism?

Hempel emphasizes the support provided by successful tests, while Popper emphasizes attempts to falsify theories.

How does Bacon's narrow inductivism compare with Popper's falsificationism?

Bacon emphasizes induction from observations, while Popper rejects induction and emphasizes deductive attempts to falsify theories.

Which approach does the study guide ask you to evaluate as the best account of scientific method?

The study guide asks you to compare Bacon, Hempel, and Popper and defend which account best explains the success, rationality, and objectivity of science.