Theory of Science

Paper Summary:

This paper examines two epistemological frameworks through which scientific information can be categorized and understood. The paper discusses the empirical inductivist methodology and Karl Popper's theory that attacks inductivist reasoning and delineates between theories that are scientific and others that are not. The paper critically analyzes these two approaches to science and concludes that the empirical inductivist approach is less rigid and exacting than the Popperian approach which is a better characterization of scientific epistemology.

From the Paper:

"The differences in these approaches to science are significant. First, however, it is important to conceptualize exactly what I mean when I refer to an empirical inductivist approach to science or the Popperian approach. Consider the component words of empirical inductivist. Empiricism is a simple enough concept to understand. It is the idea that factual information about the world can only be experienced through the senses. Induction is no more complex. In essence it is the logical inference of universal laws from individual instances and isolated facts. It is a process of abstraction and generalization that forms the backbone of the empirical sciences (Dolhenty, 2005). Thus, an empirical inductivist approach is the scientific process of taking observed and experimental facts and using them to deduce greater pieces of knowledge. An individual employing this kind of science would observe natural processes and then induce a hypothesis and natural law that could explain the available data."

More papers on Theory of Science:

• Essay # 25320 : "Max Wertheimer's Gestalt Theory of Psychology"
• Term Paper # 124421 : "Philosophy of Science and Theory Development"
• Analytical Essay # 31660 : "The Nature of Science"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: