Karl Popper’s demarcation problem

Sfetcu, Nicolae Karl Popper’s demarcation problem., 2019 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of Karl_Popper_demarcation_problem-C.pdf]
Preview
 Text
Karl_Popper_demarcation_problem-C.pdf
Download (274kB) | Preview

English abstract

Karl Popper, as a critical rationalist, was an opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism and relativism in science. A major argument of Popper is Hume's critique of induction, arguing that induction should never be used in science. But he disagrees with the skepticism associated with Hume, nor with the support of Bacon and Newton's pure "observation" as a starting point in the formation of theories, as there are no pure observations that do not imply certain theories. Instead, Popper proposes falsifiability as a method of scientific investigation.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Karl Popper, demarcation problem, science, pseudoscience
Subjects: F. Management. > FJ. Knowledge management
Depositing user: Nicolae Sfetcu
Date deposited: 21 Jun 2023 07:11
Last modified: 21 Jun 2023 07:11
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/44498

References

Bunge, Mario. 1982. “Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience.” Fundamenta Scientiae 3.

Derksen, A. A. 1993. “The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 24 (1): 17-42.

Grayling, A. C. 2001. Wittgenstein: A Very Short Introduction. OUP Oxford.

Hansson, Sven Ove. 2017. “Science and Pseudo-Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/.

Hume, David. 1738. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. 1974. “Popper on Demarcation and Induction.” In The Philosophy of Karl Popper, edited by Karl R. Popper and Paul Arthur Schilpp, 1st ed. Vol. The Library of living philosophers. La Salle, Ill: Open Court.

Laudan, Larry. 1983. “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem.” In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, 111-27. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6.

Lugg, Andrew. 1992. “Pseudoscience as Nonsense.” Methodology and Science 25.

Mahner, Martin. 2007. “Demarcating Science from Non-Science.” ResearchGate. 2007.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286895878_Demarcating_Science_from_Non-

Science.

Mayo, Deborah G. 1996. “Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-Eye View of Popper’s Demarcation of Science.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (2): 271-90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/687948.

Miller, David. 1985. Popper Selections. Princeton.

Morris, Robert L. 1987. “Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem.” Inquiry 30 (3): 24151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748708602122.

Popper, Karl Raimund. 2002a. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Psychology Press.

-. 2002b. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Psychology Press.

Siitonen, Arto. 1984. “Demarcation of Science From the Point of View of Problems and Problem-Stating.” PhilosophiaNaturalis 21: 339-353.

Thornton, Stephen. 2017. “Karl Popper.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/popper/.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
Contact us
Send email Sponsors
Sponsor: AIMS Sponsor: D&P Sponsor: UniNa CAB Get connected
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Linkedin LinkedIn RSS RSS