Concept of Falsifiability and the History of Science
Falsifiability as a concept in philosophy was introduced by Karl Popper to test scientific concepts. For instance, philosophy is much concerned with determining the manifestation of truth in any accepted fact by employing philosophical methods. On the other hand, science has been in the limelight of investigating the facts using the empirical justification. In this precept, philosophy and science have a common obligation to identify the facts of ideas as presented (Popper 13). According the senses from the concept of falsifiability, every claim that assures truth of any fact must be meticulous and provide every meaning in a way that it cannot easily give in to weak challenges of truth, but can be challenged by testing the hypothesis employed. On the same note, science uses designs and empirical methods to do research on a particular subject or topic. Falsifiability plays an inherent role in testing the viability and validity of the findings and inferences as provided by the scientific investigation. In other words, it is scrupulous in checking the set hypothesis behind the research, test it and come up with any weakness of the deductions about the topic, verifies the observation, and tests the predictions and determines their ability to confirm the truth-value. As a result, falsifiability has been very relevant in making scientific researchers to strive hard to come up with valid facts, but must come up with theories that can be tested.
Why Astronomy is A Scientific Theory and Not Astrology
Astronomy is a scientific endeavor that strives to provide the understanding about the physical universe. It gives an understanding concerning the atmosphere, the process of determining the locations and the functions of the matter and radiation in the face of the universe. Concerning the functional properties of the universe, there have been many claims that were believed to be true at a particular time, yet came to be challenged and be given new meanings. For example, there has been a turn in transition concerning the initially comprehended geocentric concept of the sun to the new knowledge of Copernicus. Therefore, it is worth noting that astronomy is scientifically viable, since its concepts can be challenged. On the other hand, Astrology studies the movements of heavenly bodies and the way they influence human affairs. For example, some cultures look at the sun and relate it to some fortunes depending on its appearance on particular day or time. Inherently, it is difficult to determine the universality of such believes, since the concept in one point may differ with another in another region. Meaning it is not easy to challenge it, because it is hard to falsify or verify what informs such belief, lest the scientist finds himself or herself in chaos with the community that holds such beliefs (Popper 19).
A Theory that is believed to be True, Yet Falsifiable
For a long period, it has been a concept that the speed of an object in relation to its weight affects its stability. For instance, a moving vehicle must keep the speed that is accommodative to the weight that it carries. This is in consideration to the gravitational pull that must remain at the center when the vehicle is moving. Theoretically, it becomes dangerous for the vehicle to negotiate a corner at a high speed, since the gravitational pull would get out of the center and makes the vehicle to topple off and fall down. This is what causes the accident on the roads. However, there are so many questions that someone would ask about this theory for more certainty. For example, is it true that the pull in question is universal in every space? In addition, there are machines that move on air like airplanes, so does it mean that the fatal accidents that we know in air are because of the same effect? When answering these questions, it becomes real that the theory needs more verification and refinement. According to the concept of falsifiability, if a concept leaves points of arguments and questions, then it qualifies to be a scientific theory (Popper 10).
A theory Not Falsifiable
In the realm of psychology, there is an understanding that children born after other children and not last born are so aggressive. For example in the family of five children, the fourth born may fall in this category. Due to this concept, these children always feel neglected, being that the parents care for the last-born so much that nobody gives them the love that they want. On the other hand, the first-born is regarded the senior child in the family and has some authority to command them to do something. This makes them more careful in finding their own way of a fulfilling life. That is the reason that makes them more aggressive in establishing methods of making their life to feel better in the precept that nobody helps them to care for themselves. According to this theory, they are always outgoing and try anything that they believe would give them a satisfying life. They perform better in class and are able to enroll for complex course, since they seek maximum security. In addition, they are emotionally poor and get annoyed very fast.
However, it is difficult to determine the best way to test the theory, for the reason that there are so many factors in interplay for the fundamentals of the notion. Generally, the information about the aggressiveness of a person depends on various factors that include the mental status, personal experiences, and the situation that the person finds himself or herself in during such time. In fact, some people are so aggressive in most of the things they do, but cannot even explain the reason behind their ways of doing things. Therefore, it is not easy to test the theory according to the scientific models to challenge the segments of the concept. Another reason is that there is lack of standard empirical structure that informs the idea, making it hard to challenge with the empirical facets. This inherently disqualifies it as a scientific theory according to Popper’s concepts.
Conclusion
Philosophy and religion exist together with a common obligation to find truths about particular facts. For instance, philosophy determines the manifestation of truth in any accepted fact using the philosophical tests. It engages different thoughts like syllogism to confirm the validity of any belief or idea. On the other hand, science has been in the limelight of investigating the facts using the empirical justification. In this precept, philosophy and science have a common obligation to identify the facts of ideas as presented, but using different methodologies. According the grasps of the concept of falsifiability, every claim that assures truth of any fact must be meticulous and provide every sense in a way that it cannot easily fall down to weak challenges of truth, but can be open to allow for its hypothetical testing. On the other hand, some concepts are not easy to handle in this manner, though people accept them to be true. Trying to test them would seem like trying to disapprove their concerted belief. It would seem undermining and disregarding the same and this would lead to chaos and fights when the believer is demanding to defend his or her belief. This disqualifies such kinds of claims to be accepted as scientific facts, since they do not give room for arguments and questions. Therefore, not all theories are scientific.
Work Cited
Popper, Karl R., and Inc. Marquis Who's Who. Karl Popper. na, 1959.
