Karl Poppers Science of Falsification Essay

Karl Poppers Science of Falsification Essay.

Karl Poppers Science of Falsification Essay

                                               Category: Others

3.2 Discussion Board: Karl Popper’s Science of falsification

Conjectures and Refutations is one of Karl Popper’s most wide-ranging and popular works, notable not only for its acute insight into the way scientific knowledge grows, but also for applying those insights to politics and to history. It provides one of the clearest and most accessible statements of the fundamental idea that guided his work.

Read the first part of Popper’s paper (pages 1-10) or watch the video (which reads the first ten pages) and post your personal opinion about the concept of falsification.

You can use the following questions to guide your answer: Do you think it is a valid way to define scientific practice? do you think it can be applied to all branches of science? Did you change your mind about inductive reasoning? Do you think psychoanalysis is scientific? Do you think Popper’s falsification theory limits what we can consider science?

Please be sure you use other sources if necessary to learn more about the subject if you need to. Name your references if you use them in your post. You DON’T have to write a comment to your classmates.

Karl Poppers Science of Falsification

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name


University’s Name


Karl Poppers Science of Falsification

The falsification principle used by Karl popper differentiates science from non-science, suggesting that a theory has to be tested to be proven false. I do not think that Karl poppers science of falsification is valid to define scientific practice because the principle is more a myth than a fact. According to Hook (2020), falsification is not necessary for the actual science practice since it is a way of talking about discoveries that have already been made. Falsification of science, therefore, cannot be applied to all the branches of science since most of these science practices have been clarified by experts by the use of comprehensive bodies of evidence. The complete bodies of evidence give the science supporters better arguments by showing the strength of scientific solutions; hence, not all can be falsified. As far as research is concerned, inductive reasoning involves widening specific premises to come up with a general conclusion derived from the observations from scientific practices. In distinguishing between science practices, inductive reasoning is helpful since scientists use observations and experiments to draw valid conclusions. The fact that the science of falsification, according to Karl Popper, does not agree with inductive reasoning does not make me change my mind on inductive reasoning since an experimental result is not a simple fact obtained directly from nature. I think that psychoanalysis is scientific even though Karl poppers science of falsification failed to operationalize its hypotheses. According to Hoffman (2015), in a methodological sense, psychoanalysis is without a doubt considered as a scientific research program since his theoretical efforts on psychology and medicine are effective as science projects. Popper’s falsification theory limits what we view as science since, according to him; approaches must be tested and considered realistic to be accepted as scientific truth. Thus most of the scientific practices after being tested do not meet the qualifications of them being considered scientific truths.


Hoffmann M. (2015) Psychoanalysis as Science In: Scrammed. Edwards S. (Eds) Handbook Of The Philosophy Of Medicine Springer Dordrecht. Https:// DOI.ORG/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_41-1

Hook, S. (2020). Science and mythology in psychoanalysis. In Psychoanalysis Scientific Method and Philosophy (pp. 212-224). Routledge.

Browse more products here

Order Here

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.