LECTURE 6 Flashcards
Lessons Popper Takes from His ‘Meeting’ with Marxism
Lesson 1: The Theory is Not Falsifiable Popper realized that Marxism, as practiced by its adherents, was not falsifiable. This means that no possible observation could prove it wrong, as its proponents would always reinterpret the evidence to fit the theory. This led Popper to emphasize the importance of falsifiability in scientific theories.
Lesson 2: Predictive Power and Risk Popper learned that a scientific theory should make risky predictions—those that could potentially be refuted by empirical evidence. Marxism made predictions that could always be adjusted after the fact, making it less scientific in Popper’s view.
Popper’s Criticism of Marx’s and Adler’s Theories
Popper criticized both Karl Marx’s and Alfred Adler’s theories because they could explain every possible outcome. This meant that no observation could ever falsify them, as adherents would always find a way to fit the facts into the theory. This lack of falsifiability rendered these theories non-scientific according to Popper’s criteria.
Importance of Eddington’s Experiment for Popper
Eddington’s experiment, which confirmed Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light around the sun, was crucial for Popper because it demonstrated the scientific principle of falsifiability. Einstein’s theory made a bold prediction that could be tested and potentially falsified, unlike the theories of Marx or Freud.
Schlick’s Answer to the Induction Problem
Moritz Schlick, a leading figure of the Vienna Circle, argued that the induction problem could be mitigated by focusing on the logical structure of scientific theories and their verification through direct observation. He believed in the possibility of a protocol language that could serve as a foundation for scientific knowledge.
Carnap’s Answer to the Induction Problem
Rudolf Carnap proposed that inductive logic could be formalized to provide a probabilistic foundation for scientific reasoning. By assigning probabilities to hypotheses based on evidence, he sought to justify induction within a logical framework.
Popper’s Answer to Carnap’s Answer
Popper rejected Carnap’s approach, arguing that probability could never fully justify the certainty of scientific theories. Instead, Popper emphasized falsification over verification or probabilistic confirmation, asserting that scientific knowledge progresses by eliminating false theories rather than confirming true ones.
Four Characteristics of Popper’s Falsificationism
- Falsifiability: A theory must be testable and refutable.
- Conjectures and Refutations: Science progresses through bold conjectures and rigorous attempts to refute them.
- Asymmetry Between Verification and Falsification: A single counterexample can refute a theory, but no amount of confirming instances can conclusively verify it.
- Scientific Integrity: Scientists should actively seek to falsify their own theories rather than confirm them.
What is Falsification?
Falsification is the principle that scientific theories should be structured in such a way that they can be tested and potentially proven false by empirical evidence. A theory that cannot be tested or falsified is not scientific.
Popper’s Criticism of Freud’s Oedipus Complex (and Other Psychoanalytic Theories)
Popper criticized Freud’s theories, including the Oedipus Complex, for being non-falsifiable. Psychoanalytic theories could explain any behavior post hoc, making them immune to refutation and thus unscientific.
What is ‘Corroboration’?
Corroboration, in Popper’s terms, is the degree to which a theory has withstood attempts to falsify it. It does not mean that the theory is true, but rather that it has survived rigorous testing and has not yet been proven false.
Theories Starting as Myths
Popper suggests that scientific theories often start as myths or speculative ideas. Over time, through rigorous testing and refinement, these theories can develop into scientific knowledge. This emphasizes the creative and speculative origins of scientific ideas.
The Negative Road to Truth
The negative road to truth refers to Popper’s method of scientific discovery through falsification. By eliminating false theories, we move closer to the truth, even though we may never attain complete certainty.
Context of Discovery vs. Context of Justification
The context of discovery pertains to the process and circumstances under which a scientific idea is conceived, often involving creativity and intuition. The context of justification involves the logical and empirical evaluation of the idea to determine its validity.
Why Popper Calls His Philosophy “Critical Rationalism”
Popper calls his philosophy “critical rationalism” because it emphasizes the critical evaluation of all claims through rational discourse and empirical testing. It combines a rationalist approach to knowledge with a critical attitude towards all theories.
Popper VS. Hume on induction
While both Popper and Hume acknowledged the problem of induction—that we cannot justify generalizations from specific instances—Hume remained skeptical about human knowledge. Popper, on the other hand, proposed falsifiability as a solution, emphasizing that scientific progress is made by conjecture and refutation rather than induction.
