Comparison of Popperian and Baconian Pictures of Science: Love Grace A. Davin

COMPARISON OF
POPPERIAN AND
BACONIAN PICTURES
OF SCIENCE
PRESENTED BY:
LOVE GRACE A. DAVIN
BACON’S VIEW ON SCIENCE
 According to Bacon, the nature or essence of the method of
the new science of nature, the method which distinguishes
and demarcates it from the old theology and from
metaphysical philosophy, can be explained as follows:
-“Man is impatient. He likes quick results. So he jumps to
conclusions.”
 This is the old, the vicious, the speculative method. Bacon
called it ‘the method of anticipations of the mind’. It is a
false method, for it leads to prejudices. (The term ‘prejudice’
was coined by Bacon.)
Baconian Method
It is the methodical observation of facts as a means
of studying and interpreting natural phenomena. This
essentially empirical method was formulated early in
17th century by Francis Bacon, as a scientific
substitute for the prevailing systems of thought,
which, to his mind, relied all to often on fanciful
guessing and the mere citing of authorities to
establish truths of science.
 Bacon’s new method, which he recommends as
the true way to knowledge, and also as the way to
power, is this. We must purge our minds of all
prejudices, of all preconceived ideas, of all
theories – of all those superstitions, or ‘idols’,
which religion, philosophy, education, or tradition
may have imparted to us. When we have thus
purged our minds of prejudices and impurities, we
may approach nature. And nature will not mislead
us.
 For it is not nature that misleads us but only
our own prejudices, the impurities of our own
minds. If our minds are pure, we shall be able
to read the Book of Nature without distorting
it: we have only to open our eyes, to observe
things patiently, and to write down our
observations carefully, without
misrepresenting or distorting them, and the
nature or essence of the thing observed will
be revealed to us.
 Accordingto Bacon’s book Novum

Organum, the scientific method should
be/have:
1. Tables of Investigation
2. Table of Presence
3. Table of Absence in Proximity
4. Table of Comparison
5. Short survey
Bacon claimed that science was based
on induction.
 Induction is a lot more secure and
scientific than deduction.
 Induction is a necessary tool for the
proper interpretation of nature.
POPPER’S VIEW ON SCIENCE
Popper labels the Baconian view of
science “Observationalism.”
Popper goes on to say that the Baconian
view of science (which is still held widely
today even by many scientists) is
actually a religious dogma.
 Popper criticizes the Baconian view on
several grounds. First of all, it’s impossible to
purge our minds of prejudice. Only after we
have made a scientific advance can we then,
retroactively, tell that we held onto a prejudice
(such as the Earth not moving) that was
hindering our progress. “For there is no
criterion by which we could recognize
prejudices in anticipation of this advance.”
 Popper’s method may be considered as an “anti-
inductivist version of the hypothetico-deductive
method” (Sankey 2010, 253). His model is based on
two stages:
1. FALSIFIABILITY- which is the formulation of a
testable
hypothesis that explains the empirical data.
2. FALSIFICATION, which entails that the hypothesis is
tested by trying to find empirical data it cannot explain.
The essence of this model is not to justify the

hypothesis with instances of empirical data that
support it; rather it is to find empirical data that
proves the hypothesis wrong. If we do find data that
the hypothesis cannot explain, we falsify our
hypothesis, and we ought to give up the hypothesis
for another one that comprehensively explains the
new data.
 Popper replaces induction with falsification.
 Science is not distinguished from non-science on basis of
methodology. There is no unique methodology specific to
science.
 Popper argues that his falsification or deductivism represents
the practicalities of the scientific method more accurately, and
that it provides us with a deductive argument, which provides
us with certain knowledge.
 Science consists mostly of problem solving.
Corroboration
 Popper’s rejection of induction does not mean that there is no
way of accepting a theory. Popper maintains that theories are
not “‘true’ statements” and that they are “provisional
conjectures”. Popper argues that a theory is strengthened by
the fact that it passes falsification tests. This non-inductive
warrant for a theory is described as corroboration.
Corroboration
 Corroboration is not as simple as enumerating the
number of tests a theory has passed ; rather, it includes
the testability of a theory. In other words, the more
testable a theory is, described as “the degree of
falsifiability” the greater the corroboration. A theory that
has passed its tests can only be replaced by another if
better tests can be applied to it . The higher the degree
of falsifiability, and the greater the number of tests it has
passed, increases its degree of corroboration.
Corroboration
 Popper defines his idea of corroboration as
“quasi-inductive” , however, he wants to make
sure that he is not misconstrued as arguing
inductively, and maintains that corroboration is an
evaluation of a theory’s past performance and not a
prediction of future performance.
INDUCTIVE DEDUCTIVE
REASONING REASONING
OBSERVATION THEORY
PATTERN HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS OBSERVATION
THEORY CONFIRMATION
THE INFLUENCE OF
POPPER’S IDEAS ON
SCIENTISTS
PRESENTED BY:
LOVE GRACE A. DAVIN
POPPER’S INFLUENCE
 While few of Popper’s individual claims have escaped criticism,
his contributions to philosophy of science are immense. Popper
was one of the most important critics of the early logical empiricist
program, and the criticisms he leveled against helped shape the
future work of both the logical empiricists and their critics.
 In addition, while his falsification-based approach to scientific
methodology is no longer widely accepted within philosophy of
science, it played a key role in laying the ground for later work in
the field, including that of Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend, as
well as contemporary Bayesianism.
 It’s also plausible that the widespread popularity of
falsificationism—both within and outside of the scientific
community—has had an important role in reinforcing the image of
science as an essentially empirical activity and in highlighting the
ways in which genuine scientific work differs from so-called
pseudoscience. Finally, Popper’s work on numerous specialized
issues within the philosophy of science—including verisimilitude,
quantum mechanics, the propensity theory of probability, and
methodological individualism—has continued to influence
contemporary researchers.
 Popper’s influence on scientists’ own views of their work has

been considerable- perhaps even greater that T.S. Kuhn’s
influence.
 His presentation of science as grounded in the ongoing testing of
out theories and always open to the possibility that they will be
refuted at the next test, resonates strongly with them.
 Philosophically, his rejection of induction allowed him to avoid the
difficulties that logical empiricist struggled with in their attempts to
understand confirmation.
POPPER’S INFLUENCE TO
SCIENTISTS
 Popper’s book in 1934 (The Logic of Scientific
Discovery) served as a key book which forced the
Vienna Circle to retract and modify important
ideas (e.g. Carnap 1936, Testability and Meaning:
Liberation of verification principle to confirmation
principle)
 Thomas Kuhn:
Popper and Vienna Circle agree in misconception on views of Thomas
Kuhn in:
• science as totally rational enterprise,
• neglect of factual history of science (historiographic revolution in
the philosophy of science)
• Exaggeration of falsification and role of anomalies (unfitting
results)
Kuhn turns to
 a more sociological view of science (normal science an its
“paradigms”,
 anomalies get more and more pressing,
 “scientific revolution/ paradigm shift”
TO SCIENTISTS
 Imre Lakatos:
 Sophisticated falsificationism
 Scientific research programs: in their core “hard”
convictions similar to Kuhn’s paradigms
 On the periphery belt of protective hypotheses similar to
Popper’s falsifiable claims
 Progress by new hypotheses which explain the
anomalies and have some new, additional testable
consequences.

Comparison of Popperian and Baconian Pictures of Science: Love Grace A. Davin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of Popperian and Baconian Pictures of Science: Love Grace A. Davin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of Popperian and Baconian Pictures of Science: Love Grace A. Davin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COMPARISON OF

 Accordingto Bacon’s book Novum

The essence of this model is not to justify the

 Popper’s influence on scientists’ own views of their work has

You might also like