4. Karl Popper (Falsificationism) Flashcards
Q: What historical context influenced Karl Popper’s philosophy?
A: Karl Popper was born in Vienna in 1902 and grew up during the late 1920s when the Vienna Circle formed, promoting logical positivism. This movement emphasized empirically verifiable knowledge and rejected statements that could not be empirically verified, such as metaphysical claims. Popper’s ideas on falsifiability partially opposed the logical positivist emphasis on verification.
Q: What was the main critique Karl Popper had against logical positivism?
A: Popper criticized logical positivism for relying on verifiability, which uses inductive reasoning to move from singular statements to universal ones. He argued that this approach is logically flawed and cannot establish theories as true or even probable, as emphasized by the problem of induction.
Q: How did David Hume’s critique of induction influence Karl Popper?
A: Hume argued that induction is never justified because no matter how often we observe a phenomenon, it doesn’t guarantee future occurrences. Popper adopted this skepticism, stating that we cannot derive universal theories from singular statements, reinforcing his rejection of induction as a scientific demarcation criterion.
Q: How does Karl Popper use logic to critique induction?
A: Popper used logical structures, such as truth tables, to show that inductive reasoning (modus ponens) is not solid because a true conclusion is not guaranteed even if premises are true. For instance, observing wet ground doesn’t confirm rain, as other factors might cause wetness. This logical inconsistency invalidates induction for scientific demarcation.
Q: What is the Raven Paradox and how does it challenge verification?
A: The Raven Paradox illustrates the problem with the assumption that confirming evidence strengthens a hypothesis. The statement “All ravens are black” is logically equivalent to “All non-black things are not ravens.” Counting non-black non-ravens would confirm the hypothesis, highlighting the absurdity and limitations of relying solely on verification.
Q: What is Popper’s criterion of falsifiability for scientific demarcation?
A: Popper proposed falsifiability as the demarcation criterion, where a theory must be testable and potentially refutable by empirical evidence. This approach shifts the focus from seeking verification to attempting to disprove theories, emphasizing that a single false observation can falsify a theory.
Q: How does the concept of falsification create an asymmetry between verification and falsification?
A: Falsification creates an asymmetry because while universal statements cannot be derived from singular observations, they can be contradicted by a single falsifying observation. This makes falsification a more reliable criterion for scientific theories than verification.
Q: What are the steps for conducting science according to Karl Popper?
A: Popper’s method includes:
- Stating a theory (T) based on a unifying idea.
- Operationalizing the theory by making testable predictions.
- Attempting to falsify the theory through rigorous testing.
- Corroborating the theory by surviving falsification attempts, while remaining open to future refutation.
Q: What are the criteria for demarcation according to Popper?
A: Popper emphasized that scientific statements must be synthetic and testable by experience. A statement is empirical if it can be refuted by empirical evidence, while non-refutable statements are not scientific. He also acknowledged the potential for evading falsification through ad hoc hypotheses but argued that this is not how scientists typically proceed.
Q: How did Popper propose to structure scientific theories?
A: Popper introduced the concept of axiomatic structures, where a theory is based on foundational assumptions (axioms) from which all other statements can be logically derived. These structures must be consistent, independent, sufficient, and necessary, allowing for incremental revisions when faced with falsifying evidence.
Q: How did Popper address the critique of falsifiability from Thomas Kuhn and Willard Quine?
A: Popper’s axiomatic approach allows for incremental revisions, addressing Kuhn’s critique of focusing only on crises. By making foundational and auxiliary assumptions explicit, Popper’s approach also addresses Quine’s critique that observations are influenced by auxiliary assumptions.
Q: What was Karl Popper’s view on metaphysics in relation to science?
A: Popper did not advocate for the outright rejection of metaphysics but recognized its constructive role in scientific advancement. He emphasized maintaining a clear distinction between scientific theories and metaphysical ideas to ensure the empirical foundation of scientific inquiry.
Q: What are some critiques of Popper’s falsifiability criterion?
A: Critiques include the tacking problem, where adding untestable components to a scientific theory doesn’t affect its falsifiability, and the theory-laden nature of observations, where understanding concepts like “dead” or “chicken” involves pre-existing theories. Additionally, Kuhn’s critique of focusing on crises and Duhem’s thesis on the role of auxiliary assumptions highlight limitations in Popper’s approach.
