Popper's Falsificationism versus Hempel's Confirmation Theory Essay

Popper's Falsificationism versus Hempel's Confirmation Theory - Essay Example According to Carl Hempel, deductive logic is a device for preserving truth. Therefore, positive evidence is used to confirm a hypothesis. On the other hand, Karl Popper objected that it was logically impossible to confirm or justify theories by using claims of science and observation. Hempel asserts that if the premises of a deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Therefore, logical arguments should start from some foundation while, according to Popper, theoretical claims are known to have extended beyond the particular observations that were used to support them. According to Popper’s falsification theory, experience, more specifically, sensory experience is a foundation for arriving at a subsequent observation could always prove the best confirmed theory false. Hempel and others, who supported the confirmation theory, had a strategy of showing how claims of science might be justified by being derived from sentences that could be confirmed or inval idated by observation. On the other hand, Popper, argued in favor of an alternative in which scientists should strive to falsify hypotheses, in reference to the bold hypotheses that make strong claims about the world.... Logic of science must be universal. The scientific method must be formal, and should rest not on specific assumptions about the way the world is, but it must be sufficient. Therefore, given a set of premises rules of logic are sufficient to decide whether a conclusion follows and there is no need of other information (Kincaid 23). Always logic of science should allow us to do something similar, and that is to decide whether a hypothesis is confirmed given the data. Similarly, according to Hempel, a new law is looked by following a process, whereby a guess is made; consequences are computed about the guess to see what would be implied if this law that was guessed is right. Then, the result of computation is compared with nature to see if it works. Agreement will constitute good evidence only when it is known that there is not a more reasonable rival that predicts what ha already been observed. As much as confirmation is only one part of acceptance, and acceptance of a theory requires more than knowing whether a specific batch of data supports a particular hypothesis, multiple tests, the scope of the data, the logical and evidential ties with other hypotheses can be factored in order to make it practical (Kincaid 24). In shifting the emphasis entirely to falsification, Popper rejects the generally accepted aspect of science that experience, more specifically; sensory experience is a foundation for arriving at a subsequent observation because it could always prove the best confirmed theory false. He rejects the qualitative notion of evidence in confirmation. He argues that claims of the logic of science are generalizations from scientific practice. However, scientific practice is diverse in terms of time and fields.