Scientific philosophy

deadfingers

I am currently in philosophy class in college and we are disccusing philopshers such as Pooper and Kuhn. I would like to know were I could get some definite definitions of their theories as I seem to contradictions about all their theories.

Paligulus

Well, and correct me if i'm wrong people, but I think Popper said that a scientific fact could be accepted if its possible to test it. Also he said that a scientific theory could not be taken as fact unless it was falsifiable. i.e you have to accept that the theory could be proved wrong as it is impossible to test it under every possible condition.

I'm not too sure about Kuhn. Could anybody help on that one?

Lakato's is another big name in this area. He expanded on Popper's theories. Popper said once a theory is proved wrong, that's it. The theory is wrong. However, Lakatos said that modern science is based on theories being proved wrong, and subsequently refined.

Anyway, my knowledge is pretty limited on this subject. Anybody like to jump in?!!!

Paligulus

Was Kuhn's theory naive falsification?

Or was that Lakatos?

Ahh I'm confused!!!

Any experts want to jump in to save me any further embarisment!!!!

DadaKopf

It's Lakatos ('Lackatosh').

I never studied philosophy of science so I know nothing about Popper except for the basics of his theory of falsification, which was some kind of inversion of Hegelian 'determinitive negation'.

Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Revolutions presented a radically different theory of scientific progress in which changes came about through decisive ruptures in thinking rather than the gradual transformation of ideas via the positivist notion of the constant acccumulation of more and more knowledge. In this sense his idea was similar to Foucault's paradigm theory.

But eh, here ya go.