In this blog post, we’ll examine the formation of scientific knowledge and the characteristics of South Korea’s educational system, focusing on Karl Popper’s theory of “falsifiability,” and consider together what kind of education is best suited for the advancement of science.
Is science truly an objective discipline?
Whenever someone asked me what my favorite subjects were, I always answered “math and science,” citing the same reason. This is because I found the process of logically solving a given problem by appropriately applying known formulas or propositions more appealing than constantly pondering philosophical questions with no definitive answer or engaging in abstract disciplines where it is difficult to reach a definitive conclusion. I believe the views of many people who enjoy math and science are not much different from mine. This is because most are drawn to the objectivity and logic inherent in these disciplines.
While completing the required curriculum and accumulating knowledge through school classes and textbooks, I never had the opportunity to question the various theories presented in textbooks, the formulas proposed by countless scientists, or the mathematical formulas and propositions that almost everyone uses without a second thought. I naturally accepted them as absolute facts and truths. However, while reading Karl Popper’s book ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, I came to agree that many of the formulas and theories I had previously considered indispensable for solving problems are not, in fact, absolute truths.
Furthermore, as I pondered the question of what scientific knowledge actually is, I began to examine the various theories proposed by philosophers of science regarding the process by which scientific knowledge is formed. This led me to question whether the educational methods we currently use are truly appropriate for the advancement of science. In this paper, I will begin with the debate over whether science is an objective discipline, examine Karl Popper’s “falsifiability”—a representative theory explaining the formation of scientific knowledge—and reflect on educational methods suitable for the development of scientific theories.
As mentioned earlier, while reading ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, I found it easy to agree that science cannot be considered a completely objective discipline. Although science strives to explain natural phenomena more objectively than other disciplines, given that explanations of certain phenomena may be revised over time or replaced by new theories, it is difficult to assert that science is a discipline possessing absolute objectivity.
Just as there is a view that science is accepted as a form of authority in modern society, scientific knowledge is formed based on the consensus of many people living in a particular era and the research achievements of scientists who are socially recognized as authorities. Then, when someone with curiosity and courage presents grounds sufficient to refute existing theories and gathers evidence strong enough to persuade many people, new scientific knowledge and theories emerge to replace the old ones. Of course, such changes do not occur frequently, but science has evolved through this process.
Prominent examples include Copernicus, who challenged the long-held belief that the Earth was the center of the universe and proposed a heliocentric model, and Einstein, who reinterpreted the concepts of time and space—once considered absolute—through the theory of relativity. Since then, science has continued to evolve by revising or expanding existing theories in various fields, such as quantum mechanics, cosmology, and the life sciences. It is entirely possible that some of the scientific common sense we currently take for granted will be revised through future research. This demonstrates that science is not a body of knowledge with absolute objectivity, but rather a discipline subject to constant verification and revision.
What does Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability mean?
The fact that science is not a completely objective discipline becomes even clearer when we examine Karl Popper’s arguments regarding the process of forming scientific theories. The most central concept in Karl Popper’s ‘Conjectures and Refutations’ is “falsifiability.” Falsifiability refers to the possibility that a claim, statement, or theory can be proven false through empirical evidence. Popper believed that the more falsifiable a theory is, the more comprehensive it is, and thus the more scientifically significant it is.
In other words, scientific theories evolve through a process in which existing theories are refuted by empirical evidence and replaced by new theories capable of explaining a broader range of phenomena. Popper put forward this argument because it is fundamentally impossible for humans to verify every possible case through experimentation. No matter how many examples support a theory, it cannot be proven to be completely true; on the contrary, even a single counterexample can lead to the revision or rejection of an existing theory. Therefore, Popper’s core argument is that what matters in science is not complete proof, but rather continuous verification and falsification.
Is South Korea’s educational system suited to the advancement of science?
Currently, South Korea’s educational system has been criticized for its strong emphasis on grade-centered assessment and rote learning. Of course, for scientific theories to advance, a process of critiquing existing theories and proposing new perspectives is necessary; however, this must be preceded by a thorough understanding of existing knowledge. In other words, the process of learning and mastering existing research and theories is essential before putting forward new claims. To borrow Thomas Kuhn’s phrase, the process of fully understanding the prevailing paradigm must come first.
Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the curriculum itself—which teaches theories already verified by many scientists and widely accepted in academia, and cultivates the ability to solve problems using them—is fundamentally flawed. However, I believe it is a clear limitation that, in this process, students do not have sufficient opportunities to ask their own questions about what they are learning or to explore new ideas.
In a grade-centered assessment system, students spend most of their time focusing on how efficiently they can memorize theories and formulas and apply them to solve problems, rather than deeply understanding or critically examining them in order to earn good grades. Even when learning a formula that explains a natural phenomenon, it is not uncommon for students to simply memorize the proof process verbatim to prepare for essay-type or written response assessments, rather than taking an interest in the thought process scientists followed to propose such theories.
Therefore, I believe it is necessary to critically examine South Korea’s current educational methods based on Popper’s theory of “falsifiability.” As mentioned earlier, the process of mastering existing theories and claims is absolutely necessary. However, it is regrettable that students—who should be the active agents of their own learning—are unable to engage in learning based on their own thinking. While the problems with a grade-centered evaluation system are certainly significant, I believe the more fundamental issue lies in an educational environment where students rarely have the opportunity to even contemplate these issues themselves.
Since there are few opportunities to engage with the philosophy of science—including the works of Kuhn and Popper—many students do not fully understand that scientific knowledge is not an absolute truth, value, or fact, but rather provisional knowledge that can be revised at any time. As a result, influenced by rote learning, they often perceive science as a highly objective and absolute discipline and accept this view as a matter of course.
On the other hand, I also agree that it is very difficult for students learning theories that have long been verified and accepted by outstanding scientists to come up with new counterarguments against those theories. The remarkable progress science has made to date can be viewed not so much as the result of everyone studying science constantly questioning and striving to disprove existing theories, but rather as a process in which a very small number of creative scientists with exceptional academic curiosity propose new hypotheses and theories, which then, after extensive research and verification, establish themselves as new paradigms. Does this mean that the future advancement of science must continue to rely solely on a small number of researchers capable of putting forward new claims?
Most people studying science do not choose the path of a researcher who discovers new formulas or laws; rather, they utilize the knowledge they have acquired to create value in various industrial and social sectors. In other words, it is far more common for them to accept existing scientific knowledge as relatively certain facts and apply it to solving real-world problems. Nevertheless, I believe that anyone studying science should at least be aware of the possibility that what they are learning could be revised at any time based on new evidence or research.
If, based on one’s background knowledge and reasoning, an existing theory is deemed sufficiently valid, it is perfectly acceptable to accept it. Conversely, if doubts arise, one should adopt an attitude of reflecting on the issue to resolve it, seeking out relevant research, or conducting one’s own inquiry. What I find most regrettable about South Korea’s educational system is that, in the process of acquiring new knowledge, students rarely have the opportunity to fully express and examine their own thoughts.
What kind of education is necessary for the advancement of science?
I do not believe that the advancement of science is achieved solely through the discovery of new laws or formulas, or by proving existing theories wrong. If we accept existing theories as valid while still engaging in a process of thorough contemplation and reflection, we can generate diverse and creative ideas that allow us to apply that knowledge in ways that are even more beneficial to our lives. This process can also be viewed as a way to contribute to the advancement of science by appropriately utilizing the knowledge gained through science.
Therefore, rather than focusing solely on memorizing existing theories, education should cultivate the ability to understand and apply them, while also providing practice in logically expressing one’s own thoughts and explaining the thought processes that led to those conclusions. I believe that an education which provides students with the experience of asking questions and thinking for themselves—rather than merely memorizing scientific knowledge—is the approach best suited to the advancement of science.
The fact that the existing educational system in South Korea has failed to sufficiently foster diverse and innovative thinking among science students can be inferred from the long-standing concerns regarding creativity and research competitiveness in the field of science. Of course, one cannot definitively judge the success or failure of an education system based solely on a country’s Nobel Prize record; however, many would agree that an education that cultivates creativity and critical thinking is a crucial factor in scientific and technological competitiveness.
In this article, by examining Popper’s theory, I have reflected on the fact that science is not a fixed body of knowledge but a dynamic discipline that can be revised at any time through new evidence and arguments. Based on this, I have also considered whether South Korea’s educational approach is structured in a way that can sufficiently contribute to the advancement of scientific theory.
The process of learning existing knowledge is, of course, important. However, this process should not involve unconditional acceptance but rather be grounded in independent thinking. To achieve this, an educational environment must be created where students understand that science is not an absolute truth but a discipline that is constantly verified and revised, and where they can ask questions, engage in discussion, and think for themselves.
I, too, had become so accustomed to South Korea’s educational system that whenever I encountered new material, I accepted it as a given and focused solely on mastering it as quickly as possible. However, after reading books on the philosophy of science—including ‘Conjecture and Refutation’ and ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’—and researching the arguments of relevant scholars, I began to reexamine my own attitude toward studying science. It also prompted me to reflect deeply on the very nature of science as a discipline. I believe that having every student in the process of learning take the time to reflect on their own attitude toward studying scientific theories is the educational approach best suited to the advancement of science.
