Karl Popper's theory on violence Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Karl Poppers surmisal on violence - Essay ExampleHe saw how Einstein had been critical f his own theory, constantly trying to pick holes in order to disprove or, as Popper saw it, improve it. This contrasted sharply with the attitude f Marxists and Psychoanalysiss who, it seemed to Popper, created theories and consequently re-interpreted them to compositors case any given situation. This first encounter with empirical evidence and its hindquarters for the proving f theories would lead him to his eventual way f thinking about falsity theory.Karl Popper argues that scientists should start with a hypothesis, or a statement that is to be tested. The statement should be precise and should state exactly what will happen in token circumstances. On the basis f the hypothesis it should be possible to deduce predictions about future happenings. According to Popper it matters little how a scientific theory originate, it does not have to come from prior observation and analysis f data.Popp er denies that it is even possible to produce laws that will necessary be found to be authorized for all time. He argues that, logically, however many times a theory is apparently proved correct because predictions made on the basis f that theory come true, there is always the possibility that at some future date the theory will be proved wrong or falsified.Popper argued that scientific senesce required a ground work f structure and rationalisation where theories that seemed opposed to each other could be evaluated fairly and equally. To this end Popper created a scientific approach, called falsifications. He summed up the theory with the phrase I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get adjacent to the truth.Instead f constantly trying to find new evidence to support a theory, Popper claimed we should try to falsify them, and thus be able to come close one against another. In other words every possible theory would be able to be rationally and without mal ice debated about the different positions, and then choose the theory that cannot be falsified, or comes closest to it. The best theories could still not be verified or justified, but since they had not been falsified either, they would be favorite(a) to falsified theories. The rationality f holding a particular position would be granted to the extent to which the theory is open to criticism (Norris Turner, 2000).The most fundamental scene f Poppers falsification theory, inspired by Socrates, is that we have no way f write outing anything to be solid fact, and even anything we believe to be unfalteringly true could be, in the future, utterly disproved. Therefore we cannot approach any aspect f scientific debate, without acknowledging this central tenet. Popper argued that this would actually inspire further debate and progress as it allowed us to understand our limitations i.e. we had a base to begin with. He wrote, We know nothing--that is the first point. Therefore we should b e very modest--that is the second. That we should not claim to know when we do not know--that is the third. In many ways this is similar to Descartes effect on philosophy, with his central idea I think, therefore I am. He believed that everything in our lives was genuinely only the way we perceived it, not the way it really is. The only certain thing in existence was the fact that you were thinking, this gave philosophy a foundation to work from similarly