|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
... They have based their argument on a method of distinguishing science from pseudo-science developed by Sir Karl Popper called the Criterion of Falsification. ... Philip Kitcher, one of the strongest opponents of the Creation model, discussed the inappropriateness of this technique in his book “Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism”. As an alternative, he proposed another method of distinguishing actual science from pseudo-science, an improved version of the criterion of Falsification. ... Kitcher’s method of distinguishing science from pseudo-science is more suitable and also more accurate than the criterion of Falsification produced by Popper. ... Popper’s criterion of Falsifiability states that if a theory does not have any observational consequences or if it is not falsified, then the theory is not considered to be science. ... When Popper’s criterion of Falsification is applied to this situation, Newtonian mechanics would be labeled as unfalsifiable, and consequentially, considered a pseudo-science. ... This is the main reason why Kitcher believes that Popper’s criterion of Falsification is not adequate for distinguishing real science from pseudo-science.
In his book, Kitcher proposes a different criteria for separating science from pseudo-science. ... The final criterion is fecundity which basically states that a science should create more inquiries than it can resolve.
Approximate Word count = 953
Approximate Pages = 3.8
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|