Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Karl Popper TOK Presentation
Transcript of Karl Popper TOK Presentation
Problem of Demarcation
What is Problem of Demarcation?
- It is the issue of determining what is scientific and non-scientific. For Popper, it can be based on the limits of useful sciences.
Applications of the Theory
- Strength: Something that is non-scientific is impossible to falsify, or in other words, it is impossible to be tested and thus proven false. Therefore, it does make sense that there should be a divide because Science is something that can be calculated and tested to see if the theory is false. He also does not support inductive methodology.
Our Own Perspective...
By: Marc, Carl, Michel, Sean
- Born on July 28 1902 in Vienna, Austria-Hungary. His family was of Jewish religion but later converted to Lutheranism before his birth
- Karl left school at only 16 years old, and attended many lectures in the University of Vienna.
- His father was a lawyer; he was also interested in classics and philosophy, and was also known as a bibliophile (person who loved books), who had over 12,000-14,000 volumes and books in his own library, which was later inherited by Karl. His father was responsible for Karl’s interest in social and political issues.
- Karl wrote his own book in 1934 called “Logik der Forschung” (The Logic of Scientific Discovery) where he criticized “psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism and proposed his theory of potential falsifiability as the criterion demarcating science from non-science”. His focus led him to be appointed as a professor in logic and scientific method by the University of London
- For ex: Theories that can be proven false are good for scientists because these theories are the most useful while theories that can't be proven wrong aren't worth wasting time.
- In Popper's perspective, the science he perceives are actual sciences such as Chemistry, Math and Physics while he does not perceive astrology (like horoscope stuff) and psychoanalysis as scientific because they can't be falsified.
How can we be sure what the universal truths are when our knowledge and observations are subjective and influenced?
How do we know the Pseudo science can't be proven in the near future?
What roles does bias and personal experience play in deciding what theories are scientific or not?
- Weakness: Popper's theory however, does not explain the unexplainable things in Science. We cannot say for example that Dark Matter is not non-scientific because it belongs in Astronomy and yet we still cannot falsify it because we cannot create experiments with it. There are countless theories about it and yet still we cannot falsify it.
- He points out that science is basically problem-solving
- He promotes empirical falsification to test theories,
- He claims that all knowledge is temporary, based on incomplete information, and can be replaced by better explanations.