Who Got the Scientific Method Right: Karl Popper or Thomas Kuhn?

Written by Derek Alker on October 15, 2013. Posted in Current News

It is a common mistake among many to think science is exclusive – it shouldn’t be. The scientific method is very much inclusive, it is INTENDED to empower the people. Luther Haave, Richard Courtney and myself produced the below description of the method, which to date has not been questioned to my knowledge.  The full version is at globalwarmingskeptics.info.

Excerpt:

Some scientists have become advocates of the hypothesis of an enhanced greenhouse effect. Kary Mullis, won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993, and he writes in his book, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, of such advocates:

“Scientists who speak out strongly about future ecological disaster and promote the notion that humans are responsible for any changes going on are highly suspect. Turn off the TV. Read your elementary science textbooks. You need to know what they are up to. It’s every man for himself as usual, and you are on your own.”

This paper attempts to aid non-scientists to assess scientific opinions on climate change and to discern the advocates whom Mullis condemns. The assessment requires no scientific knowledge except a basic understanding of the scientific method as explained by Karl Popper.

Popper argued that all science is based on hypotheses that must be tested to destruction. Sound evidence which does not fit with the hypothesis must logically cause it to be rejected. However, the other side of the same coin is that no hypothesis can ever be said to be proven. Over time, the body of evidence consistent with a successful hypothesis builds up to the extent that it becomes regarded as a theory, for example the theory of General Relativity, or Tectonic Plate theory.

Thomas Kuhn provided a different view of how scientists work. He introduced the concept of “normal science‟ to cover the situation where scientists work on various topics within a central paradigm. In contrast to Popper, the Kuhnian view is that “wrong” results (i.e. those which are in conflict with the prevailing paradigm) are considered to be due to errors on the part of the researcher rather than findings which damage the consensus view.

However, as conflicting evidence increases, a crisis point is reached where a new consensus view is arrived at and this generates a so-called paradigm shift. Simply, Kuhn says scientists are human and have human prejudices. Advocates of the man-made global warming hypothesis promote Kuhn’s view and repeatedly cite “consensus” as evidence. Simply, they proclaim that the number of “experts” who hold an opinion is “evidence” that the opinion is correct.

But opinions are formed by many things – including personal prejudices – so “consensus” is no help to persons who wish to discern the expert opinions that most closely match physical reality. Popper’s philosophy of science is more useful for those who want to decide between competing scientific opinions.

According to Popper, the scientific method has the following steps:

1. Observe (preferably empirical data).

2. Explain the observation and or observations (hypothesis).

3. Test the explanation by an experiment (i.e. evaluate a prediction from the hypothesis). It should be noted that an experiment may consist of looking for information which would confirm or deny the hypothesis, and this is usual in subjects such as climatology and cosmology because climates and stars cannot be altered to conduct a test.

4. Analyze the experimental results and draw a conclusion.

5. (a) The hypothesis is supported if the experiment confirms the prediction and it may be on its way to being accepted as a scientific theory if others are able to independently duplicate the experimental results. (b) The hypothesis is rejected if the experiment demonstrates that the prediction was incorrect. In this case it is necessary to return to steps 2), 3) and 4), and this loop is repeated until a hypothesis is obtained which is supported by experimental results.

6. Openly publish the experiment’s methodology, results and data. The publication should include discussion and evaluation of all known possible problems and reservations concerning the study it reports. This method revolutionised human society during the Enlightenment.

   One of its great powers is that it enables non-experts to discern when experts are mistaken. This power was clearly expressed by Thomas Huxley who said; “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” And “The deepest sin of the human mind is to believe things without evidence”

   So, when considering the competing claims of scientific experts it is necessary to decide (a) if supporters of one hypothesis have presented an “ugly fact” that defeats an opposing hypothesis, and (b) to ignore the opinions of experts and, instead, to consider the evidence which supports the hypothesis which they present.

   Importantly, it should always be kept in mind that all presented hypotheses could be wrong so an “ugly fact” that defeats one understanding of an issue is not evidence that another understanding is correct.”

Trackback from your site.