Karl Popper is recognized as the founder of various viewpoints in the fields of biology and ecology for his fundamental ideas about theory and confirmation. Many scholars consider Popper the hero of philosophy. His views have been added to new models and theories to bring renewal and a new perspective to others. The Pope’s view of how theories are proven and how the concept of confirmation does not exist has given him great attention. However, not everyone approved or even tried to understand Popper’s ideas. Many scientists have criticized his work, and I do not find a place in science for his ideas, such as Falsification (Godfrey-Smith 57). Although his ideas have been widely accepted in many areas by many physicists, Popper’s affirmation of the thesis of the play with the complexities of science brings out the complexities and shows that science is somewhat rational and difficult to pursue.
Before one can understand Popper’s concepts of confirmation and falsification, one must first look at what started it – the problem of signification. Popper carefully studied the methods and theories of various sciences. From there it was concluded, “This very thing, which is always suitable, was always confirmed, which in the eyes of the admirers constituted the greatest argument for these opinions. It dawned on me that that apparent strength was really their weakness” (BR 297). Popper notes these The scientist continues to say: “If a theory is compatible with every possible observation, then it is not scientific” (58). So far, Popper insists that the scientist is caught up in dangerous beliefs and affirms that confirmation is not correct.
In Philosophy of Science by Yuri Balashov and Alex Rosenberg, Popper was quoted as saying that earlier scientists, instead of accepting their false beliefs, instead interpreted and tried to assimilate the results of their experiments. for that reason. From there, Popper brought the idea that confirmation is a myth, when he believed: “One can never confirm a theory, not even slightly, and however many observations the theory successfully predicts… Popper puts great emphasis on the idea that we can never be absolutely sure that a theory is true” (GS 59) .Popper feels irrational because of the methods for proving theories. He also shares his thoughts on the difference between unscientific theories. This is where Popper presents the question of what constitutes a scientific theory.
When Popper rejects the method of confirmation, he gives scientists an alternative, one that focuses on falsification of beliefs. Peter Godfrey-Smith affirms Popper’s method in theory and practice;
So Popper had a fairly simple view of how experimentation in science proceeds. We take an opinion that someone has proposed, and we make an observational inference from it. We therefore criticize if the prediction comes out as the theory says. If the prediction fails, then the theory is refuted or falsified. If the prediction comes out as it was predicted, we must all say that we have not yet falsified it. For Popper, we cannot conclude that a belief is true, or probably true, or even more likely than before the experiment. The opinion might be true, but we cannot say more than that” (59-60).
Many scientists thought that Popper’s methods were completely contrary to reason, and rather than “confirming” the theory in question, he left the theory unsolved, thus making the results and process more complicated. However, theories that have been confirmed for years or even decades can be falsified in decades as technology and new methods of confirmation emerge. Therefore, Popper’s falsification test can be confirmed over and over again that those beliefs are not falsifiable and the results match the predictions. One thing is clear, Popper did not want to “act to falsify one conjecture, to cook up a new conjecture designed to avoid the problems revealed by the previous proof and which does not go any further” (GS 61). This will simply overcome everything that could have made the previous position falsifiable, such as the overtime and unconscious assertion of tiredness.
However, Popper’s attraction to confirmation has been widely rejected and some objections have been provided to his followers about confirmation. Peter Godfrey Smith presents an example in order to analyze in detail one of the several objections against Popper’s view. Godfrey Smith believes that a bridge should be built and a well-structured planning system should be used. He says:
Popper can say why he prefers to use falsified theory over falsified theory. Falsified theories have been shown to be false (here again I ignore the problem discussed in the previous section). But we think we have to choose between a theory that has been tested many times and has passed all proof, and a brand new theory that is just a guess and has never been proven. Nor is the system falsified. Generally speaking, we want to think that the rational thing to do is to choose a theory that proves survival. (67)
In this matter Popper somewhat agrees with all the objectors, that he had difficulty in applying his opinion to this matter. When analyzing the previous problem, it can be seen that it is unreasonable to choose 2 over 1, since the theory, which has been tested successfully in every experiment, will generate a more positive response. What Popper is clearly trying to show is that a prodigious election, even though it is a well-proven theory, will not guarantee that he will be a guarantor if he is elected again. Even if scientists take a big risk if they choose a theory that has never been proven, how can science develop if the scientist does not take these risks? Throughout development, the risk has been constant from various scientists, offering their totally and completely different opinions. Has it been a process over the years?
Poppy takes it to a whole new level when she brings up the concept of reinforcement. Now he declares once the constitution, as I have said above, to choose a reason which is corroborated from those which are not corroborated. The reason is that the beliefs that have been proven and survived are strengthened by time. Peter Godfrey-Smith offers a new idea:
An academic transcript says what you did. It measures past performances, but does not have detailed predictions about future events. A recommendation letter usually says something about what you have done, and also states how you are going to do it. in the future Confirmation, as understood by empirical logic, is something like letters of recommendation for a scientific theory. Corroboration, for Popper, is only an academic transcript. And Popper thought that no good reasons could be given for believing that past performances would be a definite guide. (68)
What must be understood from confirmation is that even if the theory has not been proven, one should not think for a theory that does not follow. In order for a scientist to prove whether an unproven theory is correct or the proper state of affairs, it is necessary to give it the opportunity to prove itself. Otherwise, when will we know if this system is better than it has been tried many times? But we continue to choose what has been proven, since this is the one that most scientists trust, and which has had no problems. Popple’s claims when applied to life situations are not reasonable, since they cannot provide evidence, or any connection between different issues. Thus, the pursuit of further explanation or analysis can be an issue since many claims and opinions are completely useless in the test.
Popper’s attempt to make a correct distinction between what is considered and what is not, brought up various difficulties. It is irrational to speculate or refer to falsification as a dividing theory. Falsification does not provide a scientist with the certainty that a theory will ever be completely proven. It only leaves us to continue in the same place where we started. So why waste our time with falsified beliefs?
