JUSTIFICATION OF SCIENTIFIC FINDING – POPPER AND KUHN’S UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE
Keywords:
Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, scientific finding, methodology of scientific research, research paradigmsAbstract
The significance of Popper and Kuhn reflects in the contribution to the development of methodology of scientific findings. Whereas Kuhn advocated scientific revolution and establishing paradigms, Popper was an advocate of hypothetico-deductivism. We give our own review of basic ideas on the development of science and methods of scientific research with the analysis and interpretation of their understanding. The development of science is immanent for the development of education, and in order for education to be progressive, one has to research, discover what it entails well developed methodology. Pluralism in finding is the basis of scientificalness and better understanding of phenomena and processes that we are surrounded with. With critical consideration of scientific paradigms in education and the development of pedagogy, it is necessary to discover new, proper truths that will contribute to the development of education and upbringing, as well as pedagogy as science.
Downloads
References
Banđur, V. i Potkonjak, N. (1999). Metodologija pedagogije. Beograd: Savez pedagoških društava Jugoslavije.
Brdar, M. (2009). Društveni konstruktivizam i pozitivna epistemologija: o uspostavi naučne činjenice. Sociološki pregled, XLIII, 4, 445-480.
Gojkov, G. (2006). Metateorijske koncepcije pedagoške metodologije: Uvod u pedagošku metodologiju. Vršac: Viša škola za obrazovanje vaspitača.
Lee Douglas, E. & Hill Jr., L. (1979). The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review. American Sociological Review, XLIV, 6, 925-937.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of Discovery or Psihology of Research, in: Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (ed.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Australia: Cambridge University Press, 1-25.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Maksimović, J. i Petrović, J. (2012): Razvoj metodologije pedagogije u Srba. Istraživanja u pedagogiji, II, 1, 151-178.
Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Nikolić, Z. i Carić, M. (2016). Prelamanje paradigmi – Kunova, Poperova, Huserlova i Gadamerova perspektiva. Kultura polisa, XIII, 29, 407-420.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Popper, K. (1962). Conjectures and Refutations – The Growth of the Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Popper, K. (1970). Normal Science and its Dangers, in: Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (ed.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Australia: Cambridge University Press, 231-278.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge - An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Popper, K. (1975). The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions, in: Rom Harre (еd.) Problems of Scientific Revolution – Progress and Obstacles to Progress in the Sciences. Oxford: Clarendon, 72-101.
Popper, K. (1985). Cilj nauke, u: Sesardić, N. (ur.) Filozofija nauke. Beograd: Nolit, 313- 336.
Ristić, Ž. (1995). O istraživanju, metodu i znanju. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Škorić, M. (2012). Karl Poper i darvinizam. Kultura polisa, IX, 19, 215-242.
