On Canvas the full version of Popper's paper

On Canvas the full version of Popper's paper
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Submission Date
On Canvas the full version of Popper's paper
The contemporary science is flooded with several philosophical methodologies and premises which are different from those in the eighteenth and seventeenth century. Scientists and researchers hoped that the formulation of theories and methods would provide a mechanical book with rules for scientists to solve all problems. However, according to LAKATOS (1989), this dream has since been aborted: the contemporary logics of discovery and methodologies entail merely of poorly knit rules, and not mechanical criteria, used to appraise the already enunciated hypothesis. The systems of appraisal or regulations are also used as criteria for defining scientific theories, demarcation criteria, or scientific rationalizers. Karl Popper is a renowned philosopher of science CITATION Bre16 \l 1033 (Shea, 2016). He is known for his remarkable contributions to debates about the methodology of social sciences, the nature of quantum and probability mechanics, the demarcation between science and non-scientific theories, and the general overview of scientific methods and methodology choice. This paper discusses several of Popper's central themes, including falsification, realism, corroboration, induction, and verisimilitude, and the criterion of demarcation.
Demarcation
Most of Popper's early work in his philosophical career embarked on trying to demarcate non-scientific theories from empirical or scientific speculations in what he referred to as the problem of demarcation. Primarily, his focus was drawn towards capturing methodological and logical concepts and how they differ from scientific disciplines like physics, and non-science theories such as Marxist social criticism, Freudian psychoanalysis, philosophical metaphysics, and myth-making CITATION Gor14 \l 1033 (Gordon, 2014). According to Popper’s theme of demarcation, a theory or a scientific statement can only be cognitively valid if, and only if, it is possibly verifiable in principle. According to this criterion, demarcation is meant to bring out the difference between the traditional philosophical metaphysics and empirical theory based on the fact that the latter has meaningful concepts that are vividly lacking in non-scientific philosophical metaphysics. For instance, demarcation maintains that the beliefs surrounding the locations of a mid-sized substance are principally verifiable and hence, meaningful because it is possible to verify them by moving to an appropriate location CITATION Bre16 \l 1033 (Shea, 2016). On the contrary, Popper’s principle is opposed to the claims that surround the fundamental nature of causation which, the demarcation criterion terms to be meaningless.
Although Popper partly holds on to the belief that philosophical metaphysics and empirical science have qualitative differences, he is opposed to their verifiability criterion because of different reasons. Firstly, Popper claims that the qualitative differences count anecdotal claims as scientific, even though he fails to establish a scientific method to falsify his statement CITATION Ver14 \l 1033 (Veronesi, 2014). Popper likens the differences to the existence of unicorns where he claims that the fact that when an individual fails to see unicorns in a specific location does not rule out their existence in some other places. Secondly, Popper claims that the use of quantitative difference as a verifiability criterion is in itself meaningless because it is not verifiable. Finally, the qualitative differences consider universal claims as insignificant because they are conclusively unverifiable CITATION Ike16 \l 1033 (Wogu, 2016). These kinds of universally inappropriate statements, although they are rare within specific observations and empirical science, can be falsified.
Falsification
Popper claims that a genuine test of every theory lies in the attempt to falsify it. According to Popper, testing whether or not an approach is scientific or non-scientific is in itself falsification. He further claims that the degree of testability differs from one theory to the other since some concepts are more prone to refutation than others CITATION Ver14 \l 1033 (Veronesi, 2014). However, his verifiability criterion differs from the falsification proposal in several critical aspects. Firstly, Popper does not consider non-scientific theories and claims as meaningless. Instead, he holds that unfalsifiable non-scientific statements can always play essential roles in philosophical and scientific contexts, although we cannot establish their falsity and truth. Secondly, even though Popper does not believe that traditional philosophical contexts do not provide substantial grounds for us to determine with certainty whether or not a theory is correct, he is a realist who maintains that scientific models aim at the truth CITATION POP63 \l 1033 (POPPER, 1963). Hence, this presents Popper as a fabulist who believes that although we may have adopted a true unfalsified philosophy, we cannot establish with absolute certainty whether or not this is the case. Popper claims that for this reason, it is we cannot verily justify other people's credence that a particular empirical theory is correct.
Besides, Popper considers the falsification of theories to be one of the best methods that can offer a better alternative for differentiating traditional approaches from empirical ones than inductive logic. He claims that unlike systems that can provide scientific or anecdotal, theories are not logically verifiable even if tested by experience. Hence, although a falsification framework cannot be used as a criterion for verifiability, it can be utilized as a criterion for demarcation CITATION POP63 \l 1033 (POPPER, 1963). He also maintains that the categorization of a scientific principle is in itself a way of subjecting it to falsification because it makes it possible for the theory to be tested using different conceivable criteria. Popper's position on forgery is that it selects the fittest systems by passing them through fierce survival struggles and not to save untenable frameworks. Research shows that Popper was exasperated by Marxist and Freudian's claims that the interpretations of their models are founded on both historical and human behavior.
Induction
One of the fundamental problems that Popper keenly deals with is the issue of inference. He claims that we do not have a logical basis to justify the assumption of universal statements using a single premise irrespec...