Science As Falsification Summary

Words: 821
Pages: 4

Jingyi Weng
AST100-12804

In Science as Falsification by Karl R. Popper. Popper is characterized as curious. "Where should a theory be ranked as scientific?" Or "is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?" Although being a scientist, Popper still has confusion about the characteristic of scientific theory. He viewed and compared the topic with different perspectives. There are Astrology, the Marxist theory, Freud, Adler, and Einstein.
Popper said that "It was rather that I felt that these other three theories, though posing as science, had, in fact, more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy. " He felt that people would rather believe in Astrology
…show more content…
Popper stated, "These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred." Popper felt there should a part of science is unexplainable. Whereas the three theories were fit into every scenario and situation. He used the experience that he acquainted with Adler of the thousandfold experience. "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold," Popper stated. As a scientist, he believed that every situation is different, even the slightest of the …show more content…
Wiesner. Wiesner pointed out that "This group purports to show that Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and many others were, in fact, wrong in their conclusions and that the Earth is the center of the universe. While the impact of this group may be small, it is a perfect specimen of astronomical pseudo-science." Although Copernicus, Galileo, Einstein, and many others were intelligent on their field of study, they can be misinterpreted the data that was received and present the incorrect information. Popper's discovery was explaining how science is imperfect to the world; every time when there is a new discovery about a topic, there is no shame to admit the previous was wrong. It is building on and finding a more acceptable and reasonable explanation.
Another ideas is by Popper's word "It was the problem of drawing a line (as well as this can be done) between the statements, or systems of statements, in the empirical sciences, and all other statements — whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudo-scientific." If it wouldn’t be pseudoscience, people won't know the difference between