Abstract:
Karl Popper is known for his celebrated theory,Falsificationism. For Popper, the falsification
is a successful logical formula which would help scientists to discover new laws and to make
inventions. This principle is ultimately based on observation and sense experience and he
argues that this formula is more valid than inductive form because of its deductive nature. For
Popper, Falsifiability and predictability are the main features of a scientific theory. Popper
considers that this is the successful mantra chanted in the great revolutions and advancements
in history of science. With the help of this formula, he explains Copernican revolution occurs
by refuting Ptolemaic theory in astronomy. Popper reduces every scientific theory into the
status of conjecture and hypothesis as it solely depends on observation for its successful
survival. Popper believes that his principle solves the problem of induction raised by Hume.
Having done a deep analysis of history of science especially Copernican revolution, Feyerabend
comes to conclusion that the falsification principle is inadequate to explain great revolution
such as Copernican revolutions and he argues that as this revolution is a complex process, it
cannot be explained by the simple logical formula, the falsification principle. For his argument,
he shows many supporting evidences from history of natural as well as social sciences. His
entire goal is to show inadequacy of the falsification principle. This paper is to analyze the
arguments and evidences presented by Feyerabend against the falsification principle of Popper.
