Running head: FALSIFIABILITY
University of Phoenix
Karl Popper defined falsifiability as the innate sample of a scientific hypothesis, yet in the simplest form falsifiability is a belief; a belief that in order for a hypothesis to have credibility, it must be disconfirmed before deemed as scientific evidence ( Stanovich, 2010). Take for instance scientists who question others about God; “Does he exist? Is he real?” This is a theory that can’t be discredited so it also cannot be labeled as science. While the idea of no theory being absolute is something to ponder, if the theory is not falsified it must then be truth. The theory of gravity in past time was thought to be solid due to reasoning that objects do not float away haphazardly from the earth’s foundation. Even though research and procedures were fitting to this theory, testing was performed at any given time. Because of later research proving that Newton’s laws could be broken down the theory of gravity is now unaccepted as a truth. Popper addressed falsifiability as black and white; this meaning that if a theory is proven as falsifiable it is deemed scientific and if it cannot be proven falsifiable it cannot be scientific. According to Popper, there exist many areas of applied science; social science being one and is not scientific because the possibility for falsification does not exist( Pozzo, 2009). For many sciences falsifiability is useful for producing theories available to sample. When a theory which is falsifiable is tested with meaningful results, this proves the theory as a scientific truth. Of course there are both advantages and disadvantages to Popper’s idea; the advantage is when additional knowledge and resources are available truths may be falsified. A huge disadvantage is that sciences of today are judgmental and factually grounded and at the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document