Falsificationism/Demarcation Problem

Question 1

Falsifficationism

Answer 1

Karl Popper claims that there is no place for confirmation in science, inductive confirmation is a difficult and impossible task. Universal scientific claims can be falsified but cannot be verified.
According to him, scientists are not aiming to confirm hypotheses, they are
-trying to formulate interesting hypotheses
-logically deducing consequences from them
-trying to make observations and devise experiments that may show these consequences to be false. (hypo-deductive model)
Aim is to show exactly what it would take to prove the theory false, if that has not been found then stronger

Question 2

The Demarcation Problem

Answer 2

Where does the boundary lie between science and pseudo-science? If science does not make true, certain claims then how does it differ from other forms of knowledge that perhaps don’t have as much experimentation and support around them? (pseudo-science, non-science, superstition)
eg. astrology, historical materialism, psychoanalysis, homeopathy, acupuncture?
Popper’s response: science is distinct from others because it seeks to falsify it’s theories. (Attempt to look for possible ways for the theories to be false until they are left with the strongest theory)
Marx’s Theory of Dialectical Materialism - science or pseudo-science?
Freud and Adler psychological theories

Question 3

Popper’s & Problem of Induction

Answer 3

Popper claims to have solved the problem of induction, but has not been supported/recognised.
He holds:
-there is no such thing as positive confirmation or inductive support for hypotheses (there are many positive instances in pseudo-sciences which we do not take as confirmation)
-observation and experiment still bear on the question of whether we should accept or reject hypotheses because they are used to falsify them. (when faced with many different theories, many can be falsified deductively and therefore be left with a preferable theory)

Question 4

Existential Statements (Against Falsificationism)

Answer 4

Popper claims that scientific hypotheses can be conclusively falsified but never conclusively verified.
This applies and stands true for universal hypotheses, however it does not stand true for existential hypotheses.
In the case of existential hypotheses (hypotheses which are beyond what we know and the limits of our knowledge), they can be conclusively verified but never falsified because they are out of reach

Question 5

The Problem of Auxiliary Hypotheses (Against Falsificationism)

Answer 5

No observational statements can be deduced from hypotheses alone,
sometimes when there is something wrong with the observational statement, it is due to auxiliary hypotheses that the larger hypothesis is relying upon.
eg.
Newton’s law seemed to yield wrong predictions about the orbit of Neptune, the possible auxiliary hypotheses that could’ve caused this: -hypotheses about the masses of planets
-hypotheses about the distances between planets
-hypotheses that mercury, venus, earth, mars, jupiter and saturn were all other planets
Le Verriere postulated that there was another planet - Neptune.

Question 6

Accepting Hypotheses (Against Falsificationism)

Answer 6

Hilary Putnam thinks that if hypotheses cannot be fully accepted then ‘science would be a wholly unimportant activity’
Thinks there is no point in falsificationism because it takes away the usefulness of scientific hypotheses.