What are the implications of Poppers Paradox?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question asks about the implications of Popper's Paradox. Given data shows only one answer option:

"b. Doing the same experiment over and over adds confidence to the result"

There are no other answer choices provided to compare against. With the missing options, we can still assess the idea in option b in light of Popper's philosophy.

Key idea from Popper: scientific knowledge does not gain lasting certainty through repeated observation or induction. Repetition of experiments can increase practical confidence but does not prove or confirm a theory. Popper argued that science advances through bold conjectures and attempts at falsification; a hypothesis should be falsifiable and survive attempts to refute it, not be confirmed by repeated positive results. Therefore, the statement in option b—that repeating the same experiment over and over adds confidence to the result—reflects an inductive reasoning view that Popper criticized. It conflates accumulation of observations with genuine justification of a theory, which Popper believed cannot establish truth.

Since there are no other options to evaluate, here is why a hypothetical alternative that claimed confirmation through repetition would be misleading under Popper: Popper would argue that even many successful repetitions do not prove a universal claim; a single falsifying result would refute it, and robustness comes from falsifiability and critical testing rather than mere repetition. The strength of a scientific claim lies in its falsifiability and the willingness to expose it to rigorous attempts to falsify, not in accumulating successful repeats.

In sum, option b exemplifies a tacit inductive bias about confirmation, which Popper denied as a justification for scientific certainty. The lack of additional options prevents a fuller comparative analysis, but the core reasoning shows why relying on repeated experiments to increase confidence is not aligned with Popperian epistemology.

仪表板测验 1 - 第 1、2 和 3 周（第 4 周提供）

What are the implications of Poppers Paradox?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which criterion best distinguishes science from pseudoscience?

Question at position 21 A researcher claims, “Dreams predict the future, but only for people who truly believe in them.” Why can’t this claim be tested scientifically?It does not have a hypothesisIt is provableIt is unethical to studyIt is not falsifiable

Based on the content of video 1.2 and the Loeb reading, which statement best reflects the way Popper and Lakatos would describe string theory?

In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. In other words:

A theory is said to be strong if it would be impossible to prove it is wrong.

For a concept or proposition to be a candidate for scientific theory, the concept must be capable of being proven false if it is wrong.

A theory is said to be strong if it identifies many things that will not be observed if it is correct.

To assess a theory, we must ask: What observations would be consistent with it?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler

仪表板 测验 1 - 第 1、2 和 3 周（第 4 周提供）

What are the implications of Poppers Paradox?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which criterion best distinguishes science from pseudoscience?

Question at position 21 A researcher claims, “Dreams predict the future, but only for people who truly believe in them.” Why can’t this claim be tested scientifically?It does not have a hypothesisIt is provableIt is unethical to studyIt is not falsifiable

Based on the content of video 1.2 and the Loeb reading, which statement best reflects the way Popper and Lakatos would describe string theory?

In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. In other words:

A theory is said to be strong if it would be impossible to prove it is wrong.

For a concept or proposition to be a candidate for scientific theory, the concept must be capable of being proven false if it is wrong.

A theory is said to be strong if it identifies many things that will not be observed if it is correct.

To assess a theory, we must ask: What observations would be consistent with it?

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Making Your Study Simpler

仪表板测验 1 - 第 1、2 和 3 周（第 4 周提供）