The 'FALL' in the fall in love.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Re: Popper V Kuhn
This blog entry is my reply to Awais Aftab's insightful post about Popper v Kuhn debate.
http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2012/06/popper-vs-kuhn.html
I have absolutely no clue how can one categories Kuhn as a positivist. However, coming back to this brilliant blog post.
Here are a few reservations.
I think for me Popper will regard any new scientific theory not a move closer to truth(truth with capital T) but rather a move away from falsehood or mistake. A subtle difference but still very relevant in understanding Popper's argument. I can substantiate this interpretation by summing up Popper's argument from another philosophical work 'The Open Society and its enemies'(by no means a work of philosophy of science but sums up Popper's attitude towards all kind of historicism and teleology). Popper argued vehemently in that book against teleological approach of Hegel, Aristotle, Marx and Plato for holding a view of reality (truth) based on purpose (telos). However, this critique does not mean that Popper is a relativist. Let me rephrase what I said, as per Popper it is not scientifically possible to talk about the absolute truth but we can always recognize falsehood. Since for Popper science thrives on falsification, there is always room for absolute truth (in abnon-demonstrable way).
The difference between Popper and Kuhn for me lies here. Popper despite being skeptic about teleological theories of all kind held a vision of science based on 'demarcation'. By demarcation I mean that Popper genuinely believed that the scientific method is distinct from non-science. Hence his emphasis on 'falsification' as the dividing line between science and non-science. However, for Kuhn science is not a disinterested and cold inquiry about the nature of reality. In fact, scientists are no different from priests who dogmatically promote their own denominational theologies (only making sense within their own paradigms).
This relativism is exactly what disturbed Popper back in 1960s. Kuhn's understanding of 'normal science' was a threat to future of science according to Karl Popper. The famous 1965 International Colloquium was called by Popper in order to destroy this idea of Kuhn.
http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2012/06/popper-vs-kuhn.html
I have absolutely no clue how can one categories Kuhn as a positivist. However, coming back to this brilliant blog post.
Here are a few reservations.
I think for me Popper will regard any new scientific theory not a move closer to truth(truth with capital T) but rather a move away from falsehood or mistake. A subtle difference but still very relevant in understanding Popper's argument. I can substantiate this interpretation by summing up Popper's argument from another philosophical work 'The Open Society and its enemies'(by no means a work of philosophy of science but sums up Popper's attitude towards all kind of historicism and teleology). Popper argued vehemently in that book against teleological approach of Hegel, Aristotle, Marx and Plato for holding a view of reality (truth) based on purpose (telos). However, this critique does not mean that Popper is a relativist. Let me rephrase what I said, as per Popper it is not scientifically possible to talk about the absolute truth but we can always recognize falsehood. Since for Popper science thrives on falsification, there is always room for absolute truth (in abnon-demonstrable way).
The difference between Popper and Kuhn for me lies here. Popper despite being skeptic about teleological theories of all kind held a vision of science based on 'demarcation'. By demarcation I mean that Popper genuinely believed that the scientific method is distinct from non-science. Hence his emphasis on 'falsification' as the dividing line between science and non-science. However, for Kuhn science is not a disinterested and cold inquiry about the nature of reality. In fact, scientists are no different from priests who dogmatically promote their own denominational theologies (only making sense within their own paradigms).
This relativism is exactly what disturbed Popper back in 1960s. Kuhn's understanding of 'normal science' was a threat to future of science according to Karl Popper. The famous 1965 International Colloquium was called by Popper in order to destroy this idea of Kuhn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)