SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 1

KARL POPPER AND SCIENCE EDUCATION: CRITICAL RATIONALISM, FALSIFIABILITY, AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY

KARL POPPER VE FEN EĞİTİMİ: ELEŞTİREL AKILCILIK, YANLIŞLANABİLİRLİK VE BİLİMSEL SORGULAMA

Alper Bilgehan Yardımcı(PAMUKKALE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3245-7203
Pages
38–54
Publication Date
2026-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, it discusses both the contributions of the Popperian approach to science education and the limitations and critical tensions that accompany it.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study examines the theoretical and practical implications of Karl Popper’s thought for science education.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Popper’s principle of falsifiability, his approach of critical rationalism, and his schema of the growth of knowledge offer a powerful alternative to traditional inductivist and dogmatic approaches in science education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, it discusses both the contributions of the Popperian approach to science education and the limitations and critical tensions that accompany it.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Karl Popper · Fen Eğitimi · Yanlışlanabilirlik

Abstract

This study examines the theoretical and practical implications of Karl Popper’s thought for science education. Popper’s principle of falsifiability, his approach of critical rationalism, and his schema of the growth of knowledge offer a powerful alternative to traditional inductivist and dogmatic approaches in science education. The article analyses Popper’s rejection of the Bucket Theory of mind, his conception of learning as a problem-solving process, and the democratic and critical resonances of the “Open Society” ideal within science classrooms. Finally, it discusses both the contributions of the Popperian approach to science education and the limitations and critical tensions that accompany it.

Özet

Bu çalışma, 20. yüzyılın en etkili bilim felsefecilerinden biri olan Karl Popper'ın düşüncelerinin fen eğitimi üzerindeki teorik ve pratik etkilerini incelemektedir. Popper’ın "yanlışlanabilirlik" ilkesi, "eleştirel akılcılık" yaklaşımı ve "bilginin gelişimi" şeması fen eğitiminde geleneksel tümevarımcı ve dogmatik yaklaşımlara güçlü bir alternatif sunmaktadır. Bu makale, Popper'ın "Kova Kuramı"nı reddedişini, öğrenmeyi bir problem çözme süreci olarak ele alışını ve "Açık Toplum" idealinin fen sınıflarındaki demokratik ve eleştirel yansımalarını analiz etmektedir. Son olarak, Popper yaklaşımının fen eğitimine getirileri ile bu yaklaşımın sınırlılıkları ve eleştirel gerilimleri ele alınmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yardımcı, A. B. (2026). KARL POPPER AND SCIENCE EDUCATION: CRITICAL RATIONALISM, FALSIFIABILITY, AND SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 38–54. https://ajindex.com/articles/1140137

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (25)

  1. Bailey, R. (1995). Karl Popper as educator. Interchange, 26(2), 185-191.
  2. Bailey, R. (2018). Education in the open society-Karl Popper and schooling. London: Routledge.
  3. Blackie, M. A. (2012). A Popperian perspective on science education. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p160
  4. Chalmers, A. F. (2016). Bilim dedikleri (H. Arslan, Çev.). İstanbul: Paradigma Yayıncılık.
  5. Chitpin, S. (2016). Leading school improvement: Using Popper’s theory of learning. Open Review of Educational Research, 3(1), 190-203. https://doi.org/10.1080/23265507.2016.1217742
  6. Claxton, G. (1990). Teaching to learn: A direction for education. London: Cassell.
  7. Corson, D. (1985). Popper on education. ACCESS: Contemporary Issues in Education, 4(2), 84-101.
  8. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13(1), 105-122.
  9. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory (P. P. Wiener, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268-291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371
  11. Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Buckingham, England: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
  12. Hunt, J. C. (2012). On ad hoc hypotheses. Philosophy of Science, 79(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1086/663238
  13. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers volume 1 (J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
  15. Lederman, N. G., Lederman, J. S., & Antink, A. (2013). Nature of science and scientific inquiry as contexts for the learning of science and achievement of scientific literacy. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1(3), 138-147.
  16. McNamara, D. R. (1978). Sir Karl Popper and education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 26(1), 24-39.
  17. Parton, G., & Bailey, R. (2008). Problem-based learning: A critical rationalist perspective. London Review of Education, 6(3), 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460802528475
  18. Popper, K. R. (1970). Normal science and its dangers. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 51-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.007
  19. Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  20. Popper, K. (2002a). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
  21. Popper, K. (2002b). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
  22. Popper, K. (2013). The open society and its enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  23. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207
  24. Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20-43.
  25. Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: A resolution at the group level. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(1), 117-124.