This conversation would be what I would imagine would be a talk between myself, Popper, and Kuhn.
I did my mid-term project on these two philosophers and interesting enough, they have very different views about science and the nature of it all. To give a bit of background information, Thomas Kuhn argues that science does not evolve towards the truth, in other words, science does not give us truth. Karl Popper came up with his Falsification Principle that suggests that every theory must be proven either true or false to be considered scientific.
I am going to be speaking to Popper and Kuhn about college courses. In this specific project, both will be professors and I will be asking them about what they teach in their course.
Alayna: “Hi! I am so excited to start signing up for classes and just wanted to get a run-down from both of you about the classes you teach.”
Popper: “My class is about my principles, it is a bit harder than Kuhn’s because one of the principles you would learn about is the one I came up with.”
Alayna: “Well that sounds really interesting, what exactly is your theory?”
Popper: “It’s called the Falsification Principle. I am saying that there is no way to say something is scientific without having proof that it is true or false.”
Alayna: “That actually sounds really interesting. So your theory is just saying without proof, nothing is scientific?”
Kuhn: “That’s exactly what it says, boring right? My ideas are much more interesting.”
Alayna: “Oh, what are yours?”
Kuhn: “My theorem is derived from my thoughts. I thing that science doesn’t ever even evolve towards the truth. Science has this paradigm that remains constant before going through a shift. Only when this shift happens is when we see new observations and a clearer vision of our external reality.”
*Austin & Alayna look at Kuhn in confusion and look back at one another*
Alayna: “Umm, okay. Well as interesting as your thoughts sound, I feel like there is definitely science that has gotten us to where we are today in the world, meaning that science does evolve towards the truth.”
Popper: “That’s what my philosophy is about. Science does reveal the truth but my Falsification Principle just says that everything has to be testes which makes sense.”
Kuhn: “I think my ideas make sense, do they not? All I am saying is that the paradigm reveals how we can get closer to the truth.”
Alayna: “Okay, well as interesting as both of your ideas may be, I think I may skip on taking a philosophy class this semester. I don’t think I can handle all of these ideas and principles.”
Popper: “It’s not that difficult, it’s just figuring out what you think deep down. Philosophy is about figuring out exactly what you think about every idea and thought out there. It’s actually kind of fun when you think about it.”
Kuhn: “I think it is all about the mind” *Kuhn says as he waves his hand across the sky*
Alayna: * Looking at Kuhn with a confused face once again* “Well, thank you both so much for all of your time, I think if I do take a class in the future, it will probably be yours, professor Popper.”
Popper: “Well I would love to have you in class”
Kuhn: “Hey what about my class, I’m a better teacher than he is.”
Alayna: “I would watch what you say around him, I heard Popper got into a fight once and the other guy did not walk away looking to pretty.”
*Kuhn then decides to leave the conversation
Popper: “I have a class to teach and I am thinking you may as well so thank you for listening to that craziness that
is philosophy and I would suggest thinking about taking my class. Have a great rest of your day!”
Alayna: “I will, thank you so much!”
"without proof, nothing is scientific"--Popper is saying, in fact, that we never achieve nor should we strive for final "proof" in scientific inquiry. We do and should instead attempt to falsify our theories, to reveal their inadequacies rather than their perfection. In that way, winnowing the wheat from the chaff as we go, as it were, we may slowly approximate a more-probably=true worldview.
ReplyDelete“I think it is all about the mind”--not Kuhn's view. He thought paradigms of inquiry shift, and thus give us new perspectives on what's true... but he did not deny that our theories are about the world beyond our minds.
Kuhn and Popper are not diametrically opposed to one another, they're both emphasizing the historical and process-oriented nature of scientific inquiry. They're both denying that science proceeds by establishing one "certainty" after another. THey're both, in other words, non-Cartesians. They might both actually agree with Montaigne, the anti-Descartes, that our best theories at any given moment are attempts, or "essays," at truth. If they come up short, then good. We're that much closer to getting it right.