CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Falsification is a principle or theory that states that any hypothesis must be intrinsically disprovable by experience before it can be accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory in order to be cognitively meaningful, true, or scientific. This idea is linked to Sir Karl Raimund Popper, an Austrian-British philosopher of science who lived in the twentieth century. Archibong defines science as “the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe by organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories” because science is interested in uncovering or discovering truths about nature, our natural environment, and the world at large (89). These principles and ideas are used to explain natural events and make predictions about the future.
The scientific method is procedural, in the sense that it adheres carefully to established rules in order to produce objective knowledge. Empirical science is usually acknowledged as the discipline that uses inductivism in the creation of hypotheses or theories based on a small number of cases. As a result, some scientists (inductivists) consider induction as a beneficial approach and practice in the scientific effort.
Popper found it difficult to accept since on the basis of this approach of performing science. For determining its truth, it depended on the equally flawed idea of verifiability. According to the verifiability theory, statements are cognitively relevant or empirically testable if they can be verified conclusively by experience.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Popper concludes that the more a theory is falsified, the more scientific it becomes. Every scientific theory must be able to be rejected in this way. Popper’s endeavor to distinguish science from pseudoscience provides the foundation for this position. Although the position appears to be credible, it is not without its flaws. These can be summarized as follows:
What happens when a theory is proven to be false?
Why do scientific hypotheses and theories require refutation if they are conjectures?
Should scientists give up on a theory if data contradict it?
All of these issues revolve around Popper’s falsification theory.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The study’s goal is to re-examine the method for determining scientific truth, the problems that it entails, and why Popper refuted it in favor of a better method or theory. It also aims to determine whether Popper’s falsification theory is a better alternative or substitute for testing the accuracy of scientific claims.
METHOD OF THE STUDY
This is a philosophical research project; because philosophy is always critical in its approach, we will use analysis, conjecture, and critique to the subject at hand in order to gain a complete knowledge.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The study is significant because scientific truth is occasionally arrived at by hasty or inaccurate generalizations; hence, what is thought to be scientific truth, that is, scientific truth, frequently turns out to be wrong or probable. As a result, we must investigate Popper’s falsification principle to see if it can assist scientists in knowing the truth in order to remove the impediments that obstruct or disrupt scientific truth.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study work does not cover all of Karl Popper’s works; rather, it focuses on a component of his philosophy that pertains to science philosophy, as well as a critique of his “falsification theory” as an alternative theory for determining the veracity of scientific statements.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The Falsification Principle states that a hypothesis is falsifiable if it may contradict observed observations or events. “Falsifiability is a notion that states that “it must be conceivable for an empirical/scientific system to be rejected by experience,” according to Delanty and Strydom (44). As a result, a good scientific hypothesis or statement must be able to be falsified or refuted by plausible facts; if there are no empirical means of rejecting the theory, it is not scientific and should be abandoned or discarded.
Induction: Induction is traditionally thought of as an argument that leads from specific examples to a general conclusion. “It’s an argument in which a certain conclusion is drawn from certain premises from a specific observation report,” Aigbodioh explains (142). It’s true.
Leave a Comment