Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Scientific progress has taken different shapes over the past centuries, including the discovery of new ideas or phenomena, the emergence of theories, the promotion of analytical methods and procedures, and technological advancements. Due to the nature of these processes and how they take shape, different scholars and philosophers have succeeded in presenting diverse opinions that can guide future analysts to achieve their aims. Some of the famous stakeholders who described how progress in science takes place include Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle. This discussion compares and contrasts the theories and concepts these professionals presented regarding this topic.
Comparing and Contrasting Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle
In most of his works, Popper made significant contributions to this topic by describing how science progressed. According to him, the field revolved around the continuous discovery of errors and failures (Maxwell, 2017). Scholars should not rely on the practice to replace theories and aspects that were found to be inappropriate or erroneous (Maxwell, 2017). When engaging in scientific inquiries to achieve meaningful ideas and thoughts, scholars in various areas of study do not need to focus mainly on refutations and conjectures that tend to form the foundation of scientific analysis (Hanson, 2017). Instead, such participants need to combine refutations, conjectures, and corroborations if they are to make meaningful progress.
For many years, past scholars had relied on debates and analyses as some of the best ways for examining theories and ascertaining whether specific ideas were acceptable or wrong. Popper viewed such practices as lacking and incapable and supporting meaningful progress in the world of science. Corroborations, according to the philosopher, would minimize the negative implications of refutations (Power, Kingsley, and Fadeke, 2016). Consequently, the involved individuals would find corroboration a powerful sign for moving closer to the truth (Maxwell, 2017). Using such an approach, the involved scientists could come up with an acceptable or corroborated theory. Even if the emerging ideas were refutable or wrong, more individuals would be willing to accept them and consider how meaningful progression had been made in the field.
To expand his ideas, Popper presented the concept of Newtonian physics that continues to support numerous scientific inquiries today. The scholar encourages philosophers to avoid relying primarily on instrumentalism or pragmatism. The consideration or notion that scientific theories are to become or remain convenient remains challengeable. These procedures remain inadequate and fail to guide more people to gain additional knowledge or understanding of the surrounding world (Power, Kingsley, and Fadeke, 2016). With these ideas, the outstanding message is that science progresses when scholars use it to pursue the truth. All challenges, obstacles, and predicaments that emerge should never discourage scientists from corroborating and focusing on the bigger picture.
After overcoming the trivial aspects or concepts associated with what appears to be the reality, more scholars will be keen to consider what is more than the intended truth. From Poppers perspective, empirical corroboration and success in different epistemological fields remain critical if scientists and philosophers want to be on the right epistemological path (Maxwell, 2017). Similarly, they will find a new reason to appreciate the relevance of considerable and appropriate refutations.
While the Vienna Circle was a group of scientists who focused on diverse political, economic, and social issues of the day, it managed to present a powerful philosophy of science that promoted a continuous activity other than an engagement. The involved professionals believed that science was a field in constant progression and capable of empowering human beings to solve most of the challenges they were going through. Such scholars were keen not to support any theory or idea that could explain the nature and process of scientific progression (Stadler, 2015). Instead, they identified and promoted values that could guide various thinkers to present additional insights in their respective fields. The decision not to offer unique justification and support for such principles proved critical since they encouraged many people to be involved in science.
When considering new ways of advancing existing knowledge, the Vienna Circle believed that conceptual clarity was the cornerstone of progress in science. They went further to assert that there was a need for researchers and philosophers to rely on empirical evidence (Maxwell, 2017). To create the best environment for promoting scientific inquiries, the members chose not to propagate a given philosophical point of view. The consideration of a progressive role or pole was essential in focusing on and realizing the intended goals in different academic fields.
The constructivist theory in science became relevant since it challenged the application of formal concepts and empirical ideas to itself. Instead, the members of the Circle promote a new methodology in scientific pursuit where individuals could consider all emerging changes and demands and ensure that the field advances accordingly. With these ideas, these members were keen to promote the concept of logical positivism (Maxwell, 2017). This meant that scientific progress could be achieved by relying on factual knowledge. These attributes revealed that a neo-Kantianism approach was essential since it would encourage scholars to rely on experiments and discoveries. The members of the Vienna Circle acknowledge that the power of logical positivism could support the rejection of all traditional or unverifiable metaphysical doctrines.
From these above epistemological thoughts, the reader can acknowledge that both Popper and the Vienna Circle propagate the concepts of empiricism to promote scientific inquiry and ensure that it progresses to resolve human challenges and improve their knowledge. However, Popper focuses on the stance of corroboration to support the progress of science while the Vienna Circle considers the notion of logical positivism to support the same idea (Stadler, 2015). Despite such differences, future scientists could apply them to improve their concepts and take science to the next level.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is agreeable that the Vienna Circle and Poppers offer diverse views that describe the processes through which science progresses. Despite such disparities, they both try to prove that science progresses by presenting frameworks, concepts, and typologies that can guide scholars to uncover new phenomena and ideas. In conclusion, the processes of corroboration and logical positivism present meaningful arguments for understanding how science progresses.
Reference List
Hanson, K.R. (2017) Predicting the truth: overcoming problems with Poppers verisimilitude through model selection theory, Acta Cogitata, 4(5), pp. 41-50. Web.
Maxwell, N. (2017) Karl Popper, science and enlightenment. London: UCL Press.
Power, W.I.A., Kingsley, O.U. and Fadeke, O. (2016) A critical analysis of Karl Poppers verisimilitude thesis and the hallmark of science, Covenant International Journal of Psychology, 1(2), pp. 31-41. Web.
Stadler, F. (2015) The Vienna Circle: studies in the origins, development, and influence of logical empiricism. New York: Springer.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.