The Philosophy of Science

Paper Summary:

This paper argues that science needs to be independently verified to be considered science, but also that science does not need to be socially accepted to be considered science. It looks at how the experiments of one scientist may, therefore, be considered true science; however, the validity of the results should be verified by subsequent studies. It shows how many would argue that science does need to be socially accepted in order to be verifiable and proclaimed as legitimate and how history has proven that, time and time again, "science" has forged ahead, despite skepticism and criticism from a social standpoint.

From the Paper:

"Many philosophers have supported the idea that science does not need to be socially accepted to be considered valid. Popper for example argues that mere deduction is not a valid mechanism of validating scientific fact. According to Popper, the possibility always exists that no matter how many observations exist to validate a theory, the possibility that a future observation will disrupt that theory consistently exists (Jones, 2003). This viewpoint supports the idea that a scientific theory may be considered valid even if it is not socially accepted. Popper would argue that even if the scientific theory were socially accepted, it could still be refuted at a later date by new discoveries. Science according to Popper is in essence a revolutionary process."

More papers on The Philosophy of Science:

• Comparison Essay # 142503 : "Philosophy of Science: Natural V. Social"
• Analytical Essay # 58856 : "The Philosophy of Francis Bacon"
• Term Paper # 124421 : "Philosophy of Science and Theory Development"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: