Essay --

(1.) Verification and observation is not the same thing. When you verify a theory, you have at least partially found support for its truth through observation. When you falsify a theory, you have definitely found support for its un-truth, through observation. Verifiability and falsifiability are contrasting methodologies in the sense that they each emphasize different values of truth: verifiability on â€Å"truth† (at least partial) and falsifiability on â€Å"false.† Consider the classic example of the white swan. Swans in Europe were white so each separate observation of a swan came back as white. Therefore, the induction produces the conclusion that all swans are white. Seemingly giving confirmation, each separate observation verified the conclusion â€Å"all swans are white.† The evidence of course was overpowering, that is until they learned that Australia had black swans. With this singular observation, all the thousands of verifications of white swans were unconcluded. That is the strength of falsification. A singular observation or experiment can toss everything away. Both verifiability and falsifiability share the shortcoming that it can’t reach absolute truth. Verifiability can’t reach absolute truth because of the complications with induction. Falsifiability can’t reach absolute truth for a couple reasons. First, proving that a theory is false only verifies that the negation is true. That’s not much concerning scientific advancement. Second is because of falsifiability identification, with the demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science, a (supposed) true theory can’t be scientific, because it can’t be falsified. The plausibility of scientific theory in verificationism is â€Å"strong† supporting evidence. ... ...ur deficient human understanding that inhibits us from perceiving it so. The methods of holism don’t seem to be wholly at odds with the traditional scientific method. That being said, holism doesn’t strictly adhere to the scientific method notwithstanding the usage of a scientific-sounding language and can produce neither specific predictions about the natural world nor consequential insights. This reductionism seems to assume that by examining the mechanisms of nature we can predict and consequently control it. Holism does not solve the demarcation problem. A pseudo-science has the solution to everything and can never â€Å"not be true,† whereas a science doesn’t have the solution to everything and can â€Å"always be false.† Religion is only a pseudo-science when it takes itself to be resolving scientific questions; otherwise it is perfectly consequential for Popper. Essay -- (1.) Verification and observation is not the same thing. When you verify a theory, you have at least partially found support for its truth through observation. When you falsify a theory, you have definitely found support for its un-truth, through observation. Verifiability and falsifiability are contrasting methodologies in the sense that they each emphasize different values of truth: verifiability on â€Å"truth† (at least partial) and falsifiability on â€Å"false.† Consider the classic example of the white swan. Swans in Europe were white so each separate observation of a swan came back as white. Therefore, the induction produces the conclusion that all swans are white. Seemingly giving confirmation, each separate observation verified the conclusion â€Å"all swans are white.† The evidence of course was overpowering, that is until they learned that Australia had black swans. With this singular observation, all the thousands of verifications of white swans were unconcluded. That is the strength of falsification. A singular observation or experiment can toss everything away. Both verifiability and falsifiability share the shortcoming that it can’t reach absolute truth. Verifiability can’t reach absolute truth because of the complications with induction. Falsifiability can’t reach absolute truth for a couple reasons. First, proving that a theory is false only verifies that the negation is true. That’s not much concerning scientific advancement. Second is because of falsifiability identification, with the demarcation criterion between science and pseudo-science, a (supposed) true theory can’t be scientific, because it can’t be falsified. The plausibility of scientific theory in verificationism is â€Å"strong† supporting evidence. ... ...ur deficient human understanding that inhibits us from perceiving it so. The methods of holism don’t seem to be wholly at odds with the traditional scientific method. That being said, holism doesn’t strictly adhere to the scientific method notwithstanding the usage of a scientific-sounding language and can produce neither specific predictions about the natural world nor consequential insights. This reductionism seems to assume that by examining the mechanisms of nature we can predict and consequently control it. Holism does not solve the demarcation problem. A pseudo-science has the solution to everything and can never â€Å"not be true,† whereas a science doesn’t have the solution to everything and can â€Å"always be false.† Religion is only a pseudo-science when it takes itself to be resolving scientific questions; otherwise it is perfectly consequential for Popper.