Introduction
Theory in its actual sense means viewing or contemplating as opposed to taking action. Thus, they are analytical tools for better understanding in order to make predictions on a given subject matter. In many aspects, theories are syntactic and only become meaningful when a semantic component is added to them making them be expressed in a natural language, but they should be constructed in a way that makes them identical to a theory like in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories can be expressed mathematically or in a common language so long as they follow logic or rational thought principles. Theories are constructed in such a way the sentences consist of true statements concerning the matter in hand which is under consideration, but the truth of one of the statements is relative to the whole theory. Under the scientific point of view, theories are reserved for explanations of phenomena that adhere to requirements about the observations made and the means to which it’s classified plus the consistency of the theory makes up to which class it will partake.
Hence a scientific theory is also referred to as empirical theory because it consists of concepts that include abstractions for observable phenomena (quantifiable properties), also for the fore mentioned observations to be construed scientific laws must be expressed. In order for empirical data to be available, a scientific theory is constructed and laid down as a principle for examining the class phenomena. Scientific theories based on some of the formal system logic it deductive making some of its elementary theorems to be taken as axioms. Therefore, for a scientific theory to be good it must describe a class of observations accurately and must make predictions of future observations.
According to Karl Popper, falsifiability is a concept of the philosophy of science, and it’s necessary but in a way not sufficient for ideas from a scientific point of view. The nature of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or predictions that are testable and their relevance is in determining the usefulness of the theory. Consequently, a theory with no specific predictions is considered not useful and in that instance, the term “theory” is not applicable. Hence the description of knowledge is only called a theory once it is in harmony with pre-existing theory and it was experimentally verified to dispute the pre-existing theory was wrong to some extent. Also, many strands of evidence must be supported to ensure that it’s a good approximation rather than a single foundation(Schumpeter 66).
Criticism
Contemporary philosophers both analytic and of science are of the view that Popper actually misrepresented scientific practice in that it hasn’t been preferred to probabilistic induction. His approach as a scientist is similar to Kuhn’s paradigm wills on the other hand Popper rejected the use of ad hoc as hypotheses because he considered it unscientific. Unfalsifiable states nothing on their validity or element of truth but it goes to a great extent in determining statements that will be evaluated. In case evidence is not available to support a case, while indeed it’s false, nothing much can be done in such a scenario. However, it can be looked at from a different angle. This allows it to be examined more thoroughly.
Physicists named Jean Bricmont criticized the falsifiability in their book Fashionable Nonsenseon on the aspect that it doesn’t depict the accuracy, which shows how science works, and It was argued that the use of theories were for their successes and not of the failures. In contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism which was the topic of discussion on falsifiability and the scientific theory which attempts to make a clear cut of their own views of what constitutes to the truth?
According to Paul Feyerabend he saw the history of science by ultimately rejecting any of Lakatos’ ad hoc hypothesis, stating that by ensuring all available method that enhance new theories could not have progressed. He did not accept the fact that reliance of any kind on a scientific method might be derived from such a method (Popper 58).
Conclusion
As much as Popper is renowned for his research into fields such as Metaphysics, he claimed that falsifiability was simply just and illustration where criticizability was in stark contrast to positivism (Conford 78). This is further highlighted by the continuous tests and assessments that he confessed were one of the most efficient techniques in which any theory could be tested and assessed. This paper has sought to illustrate the the subject of philosophy from the view of falsifiability and positivism. Karl popper wanted to dissect this subject and make it easier for further analysis. Scientific theory is taken as empirical presumption. This is because it is made up of concepts that comprise of ideas for apparent phenomena. In order for the fore declared observations to be interpreted, scientific laws have to be put across. Scientific theory can hence be classified as true and this makes them a valid philosophical subject that needs to be analyzed, just as other disciplines. (Conford 22)
Works Cited
Conford, Frank. From religion to philosophy: a study in the origins of western speculation. New York: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Popper, Kevin. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica, 2007,(32): 339–355.
Schumpeter, Allan. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.