Popper's Falsificationism versus Hempel's Confirmation Theory Essay

Popper's Falsificationism versus Hempel's Confirmation Theory - Essay Example According to Carl Hempel, deductive logic is a device for preserving truth. Therefore, positive evidence is used to confirm a hypothesis. On the other hand, Karl Popper objected that it was logically impossible to confirm or justify theories by using claims of science and observation. Hempel asserts that if the premises of a deductive argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Therefore, logical arguments should start from some foundation while, according to Popper, theoretical claims are known to have extended beyond the particular observations that were used to support them. According to Popper’s falsification theory, experience, more specifically, sensory experience is a foundation for arriving at a subsequent observation could always prove the best confirmed theory false. Hempel and others, who supported the confirmation theory, had a strategy of showing how claims of science might be justified by being derived from sentences that could be confirmed or inval idated by observation. On the other hand, Popper, argued in favor of an alternative in which scientists should strive to falsify hypotheses, in reference to the bold hypotheses that make strong claims about the world.... Logic of science must be universal. The scientific method must be formal, and should rest not on specific assumptions about the way the world is, but it must be sufficient. Therefore, given a set of premises rules of logic are sufficient to decide whether a conclusion follows and there is no need of other information (Kincaid 23). Always logic of science should allow us to do something similar, and that is to decide whether a hypothesis is confirmed given the data. Similarly, according to Hempel, a new law is looked by following a process, whereby a guess is made; consequences are computed about the guess to see what would be implied if this law that was guessed is right. Then, the result of computation is compared with nature to see if it works. Agreement will constitute good evidence only when it is known that there is not a more reasonable rival that predicts what ha already been observed. As much as confirmation is only one part of acceptance, and acceptance of a theory requires more than knowing whether a specific batch of data supports a particular hypothesis, multiple tests, the scope of the data, the logical and evidential ties with other hypotheses can be factored in order to make it practical (Kincaid 24). In shifting the emphasis entirely to falsification, Popper rejects the generally accepted aspect of science that experience, more specifically; sensory experience is a foundation for arriving at a subsequent observation because it could always prove the best confirmed theory false. He rejects the qualitative notion of evidence in confirmation. He argues that claims of the logic of science are generalizations from scientific practice. However, scientific practice is diverse in terms of time and fields.

Law of contract Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law of contract - Essay Example However, a counter offer has also been made under which the BD has actually asked Natalie to keep the offer open and if she does, she will get 12 tall glasses also. Considering the above situation, it may be important to ascertain whether Natalie has accepted the offer made by BD. Under this situation, it is important to ascertain the acceptance of the offer and its communication in order to make a formal contract. The offer has been accepted by BD on 18th however, it reached to Natalie on 21st however, under contract law an offer is accepted once the letter of acceptance has been posted if postal acceptance is made. In Adams V Lindsell1 and Henthorn v Fraser2, court decided that an acceptance is complete as soon as the acceptance is posted. Under these conditions Natalie will have to perform her part of the contract and purchase the bottles of Lemonade according to the offer made by her. 2(B) One of the key issues in this case is to decide whether it’s an invitation to treat or an offer to the world which Cruisey Liners plc has made. Under the case law, the advertisement made by the companies is generally considered as an invitation to treat and as such they are not liable to contract on the terms mentioned in the advertisement. An invitation to treat is therefore considered as a willingness of the individuals to negotiate and enter into contract. It is also important to note that in order to become a binding contract, it is critical that the acceptance must be definite in nature. The lack of this therefore may not render a contract binding on other party. (Stone and Cunnington) It is however, important to make a distinction between the invitation to treat and an offer to the world. Under unilateral contract, one party to the contract makes a promise for a reward on the performance of certain act. When an offer is made to the world, its acceptance only occurs when the complete performance of the act is done. (Elliot and Quinn). Considering this, the cas e of Caroline may not require damages for the firm because she has not performed the act. However, in case of Stephen Spider, the same may not be the case as the acceptance of the offer has been made through the performance of the act. It also however, has to be decided as to whether the revocation of offer should be communicated through same channels or not. As a general rule however, the revocation of the offer has to be properly communicated through the same channels. Q#2 The doctrine of privity under the contract law outlines that the rights and obligations arising under the contract can only be imposed on the persons who are party to the contract. As such rights and obligations cannot be enforced on others who are explicitly or implicitly not part of the contract. (McKendrick) The doctrine of privity therefore is also critical under the current environment also as the same help to identify the rights and obligations of third parties under the contract. There are wide range of l aws which are covered under the doctrine of Privity and are decided till today according to this doctrine. Issues such as trusts, estates, collaterals etc are still governed by the doctrine of pri