ABSTRACT

The study, A Critique of Karl Raymond Popper’s Falsification Principle examined Karl Popper’s falsification principle which Karl popper was concerned with distinguishing science from pseudo-science; as well as a criterion of truth in science; and consequently his rejection of the verifiability principle of meaning since it does not adequately demarcate scientific statements, including majorly metaphysical, ethical and theological statements and this lead to his formulation of the falsifiability theory. Popper summits that the more a theory is falsified, the more it becomes scientific. By this, every scientific theory must be such that it can be refuted. This position is founded upon Popper’s quest to demarcate science from pseudo-science. The main objective of this study was to carry out a critique of Karl Popper’s falsification principle. The study aims at re-examining the method arriving at scientific truth, the problem that are inherent in it and why popper debunked it and opted for a better method or theory. The research method adopted in this research include, the expository, analytic and critical methods. The study conducts a survey of the extant literature to understand the concept, the methodology as suggested by Popper to operationalize the concept, and possible limitations, both conceptual and methodological. The extant literature points out inherent ambiguities in the Popperian concept of falsifiabilty. One recurring theme is that Popper, the deductivist, uses the much critiqued inductivistic method among his methodological suite.

Keywords: Falsification, Popper, Falsifiability, Verisimilitude