Explain the concept of verification and falsification in the science

The process of science is undertaken through two similar but distinct paths; verification and falsification. The two, though different, have more similarities than they have differences. Verification and falsification are based on two strands of knowing something; these are empirical data and rationality.

Empirical knowledge is basically that knowledge which is presented to our senses. Direct empirical knowledge is generally considered reliable and so is a route to knowledge. If I can report that there is a white thing in front of me that appears to have the characteristics of a wall, then it is reasonable to assume that I am standing in front of a wall.
Taking a step away from this direct knowledge does lead us away from certainty. For example, if I was to claim that yesterday I had a wall experience then I am adding another category of explanation to my wall experience, that of memory. A remembered experience is not as reliable as a current experience. But a current sensory experience is one of the best and most reliable chunks of knowledge that we can have.

Two sides of the Same Coin

Verification and falsification are each based on empirical data and rational argument though each places a different emphasis on one side of this equation over the other. Verification demands that any scientific hypothesis be confirmable through the senses. So important is the idea of verification that any statement which cannot be examined via the senses is dismissed as nonsensical. The scientific verificationist would therefore go out into the world, make an observation and then construct a theory based on that observation.

The falsificationist would take an approach which could be considered to be the reverse of this. Falsification requires that an idea be put into a theoretical postulate which is assumed to be a candidate for truth. The postulate has to be capable of being falsified. The process then necessitates the scientist designing an experiment which is capable of disproving the hypothesis. If the hypothesis stands up against the experiment it is not considered to be true, merely a candidate for truth.

The more experiments the hypothesis defeats the more that hypothesis is considered to be a candidate for truth. It will never reach the status of being thought of as a truth. With falsification nothing advances past the idea of being a theory, though something could be highly rated as a good theory.

Simply put then, in verification the observation comes first and the theory develops out of the observation. In falsification the theory comes first and our observations are manufactured in an attempt to disprove our theory.

Two complimentary Approaches

Which should we prefer between verification and falsification? Science can provide examples from history where both have proven to be successful routes to knowledge. Often the methodology used was more a matter of luck or circumstance rather than something that was considered beforehand. If someone has a good theoretical idea then he will design an experiment to test that theory. This would make him a practitioner of falsification. But through experiment the scientist spots an anomaly in his theory and adjusts that theory because of what he observed. He is now verifying his observation.

 

16 Name and define the form of non-scientific knowledge. Give examples of each.

Non Scientific Knowledge is accessed via senses, intuition, revelation and experience. We know that, moving close to the fire will get hurt and burned. So, he or she gains the knowledge by physical sense - seeing, sound, touch, smell and experience.Other gain knowledge by intuition and revelation. Intuition is the strong feeling or hunch and Revelation is supernatural source, such as god, divinity etc. knowledge obtained through experience, intuition, revelations are treated as private knowledge. Objective testing is not conducted on Non scientific methods. Non Scientific knowledge hold, that the world cannot be understood by science, but rather by religious revelations, mystical experience, or literary deconstructionism.

Scientific experiment can be repeated several times to prove the results are correct in all the cases of observation carried out. Scientific method uses method of trial and error. Trial and error is equivalent to scientific methods, Scientist use more details way of understanding of problem.Whereas in case of non scientific method, it is just prediction or forecasting the event with the help of hunch or strong feeling. This won't give the same result all the time. But there is no fundamental difference between two - scientific and non Scientific(Barrow,1991) For Example, Car mechanic use his hunch to solve the problem arise in Car, but scientist solve same problem with details examination and causes for the problem. Sometimes Car mechanic can solve the problem so earlier than Scientist. From this, we can't predict scientific knowledge of no use.

In order to prove this, Gallup Poll conducted survey in March 2001 among Americans, in topic -"Creationism and evolution". In that survey nearly 57 % for Creationism, 33% for evolution and 10% are not sure about the problem" (Gallup News Service, 2001).

Best example is Physical Science, show why scientific knowledge is more credible and reliable knowledge than Non scientific knowledge. According to Lakatos, No scientific theories or hypothesis should be accepted without proper verification from other Scientist and Scientist community. Sir Isaac Newton who is the "Father of Physics", so people had blind faith on him. Newton published the final version of his theory "Opticks" in 1704.Everyone accepted it without any reference and practical experiments (example for non Scientific knowledge).

These levels are classified by stability, size and in built properties. These levels are made up of quantum, atomic and molecules of the universe (Silk, 2001).

Some of the characteristics are:

There is temporal relation between these levels for development of the universe.

Steady and Stable process, to built these level from the basic

Course of time is required for the development of the level and their hierarchy.

Universe follow the natural algorithm of evolution (Dennett, 1995), for achieving these level of stability in all process and hierarchy.

Combine these data with the help of proper communication in all level (analysis, design and implementation)

1. Accurate within the domain 2. Increase the existing knowledge 3. Simple objective 4. Respect the difference in opinion 5. Stiff in opinion is always wrong

Understand the complete problem as whole one.

 

17. Specify the main problems described in the text "Science without hope."

• Science invented by autistics and schizophrenics

• Science is no longer young

Neurophysiologists want to make marvelous

In this text, the scientific called autistic and schizophrenic. From my point of view, it is very abusively to call scientists like this. As it says: "To be a scientist, you need at heart be a little shaman or witch or little as Newton, - alchemist. And always a dreamer. "With these two sentences, I agree. Because if you do not have ideas, the new opening will not be. You always have to dream, any it be true or false. You should always Try in the modern, that is in the same, I agree with that, because now, If we consider morals a science, mainly looking for various new methods have previously set problems.

THE World War did much effort towards the benefit beyond the grave, and much of the revival was brought about through the yearnings of men and women to find if their beloved dead had crossed the unbridged chasm to a happier state and one where individuality was Still preserved. Prominent among the leaders in the widespread sports to obtain definite proof of a future life through communication with the spirit world was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who since his initial investigations has practically devoted himself to the subject. The statement of Henry Ford as To its positive belief in reincarnation will, it is propulsion, do much toward stimulating investigators to increased efforts in their quest for proof of the life everlasting. IMPETUS is given to the cause of science, which many fundamentalists have as as arch-enemy of Theology, in the recent address at Yale University of Prof. Kirtley F. Mather, of Harvard. Prof. Mather, who was one of the expert witnesses who was expected to testify at the Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tenn., Announced that modern Science has forced theology into a revolution. While denying that science opposes religion, Prof. Mather condemns "narrow theologians who think their their business to preserve a tradition than than to tell truth."

Stung by what they conceive to be a serious moral slump and an increasing atheistic attitude on the part of the younger generation since the war, a large number of preachers and reformers have launched the latest attack against science, and in particular against evolution, as its Most obnoxious principle, was the declaration of Prof. Mather.

If a plebiscite of all American voters could be taken today it would explain an overwhelming majority of adherents to the view that evolution is anti-Christian and modern science is destructive to belief in God, as a result of this campaign, he asserted.

"Theology may be just as scientific as geology," stated the professor. "Many scientists believe that real Christianity is just that sort of religion; that the theology of Jesus of Nazareth is just that sort of theology. Ancient Hebrew folklore is not the basis Of Christianity, no matter how much it may have contributed to the philosophy which made Christianity possible.

"Men of science are hastening to the development of a true religion when they aid in stripping off the husks of tradition that compass Christianity round about, and so help to reveal the kernel of truth which is its really fundamental basis. In that sense evolution and Religion are in harmony.

THERE is much in common between the declarations of Prof. Mather and those of Nikola Tesla, man of science.