Popper and Falsificationism Flashcards
What is the principle of falsification in Popper’s view? Discuss two major differences between this principle and the logical Positivists’ principle of verifiability.
-Principle of falsification: a hypothesis is scientific iff it has the potential to be refuted by some possible observation.
-If theory X is true, then X never happens. The theory forbids X. If X is found, the theory is refuted.
-Popper: we cannot prove/confirm universal statements, but we can refute them.
Falsificationism is different from the principle of verifiability in two major ways:
1) How the principles aim to solve the demarcation problem. In the verifiability principle science contains all cases of knowledge (besides logic and math) and is meaningful, while non-science is meaningless. In falsificationism, a hypothesis is scientific if and only if it has the potential to be refuted by some possible observation, anything else is non-science.
2) The verification principle is verified through confirming, while the falsification principle appeals to the concept of refutation.
What is the nature of scientific testing from Popper’s perspective? Explain it.
1) propose a theory in terms of a universal statement (context of discovery)
2) make a bold prediction (given this theory, X cannot happen in reality)
3) try to find X. If X is found, the theory is false/refuted.
-If X isn’t found, it simply means the theory has not been refuted yet. He takes this view because the truth has no indicator, we cannot verify the truth of a theory, we can only refute it.
How does Popper explain the phenomenon of scientific change? Explain it.
Two step model:
1) conjecture (context of discovery), which is to make a precise prediction that X will not happen.
2) Second, attempted refutation, if you can show that the prediction is false, then the theory is refuted.
-As soon as you find a defeater or refutation for the theory, you know that it is false, and you have to abandon the theory. Popper suggests you should then create a new theory with a bolder claim.
(a) What does Popper mean by “corroboration”? (b) Assume we are facing the following two theories: (i) A falsifiable theory that is just presented and has not been tested and thus has not been falsified yet, and (ii) A falsifiable theory that has been tested many years and has not been falsified yet. Can Popper’s concept of “corroboration” explain why most of us would prefer (ii) to (i)? Explain it.
-Corroboration: when a defeater for a theory is defeated.
-If you refute the defeating observation, it adds to the epistemic value of the theory.
-If we are facing these two theories, from Popper’s perspective we don’t know which is true because truth has no value, but we can get an explanation why most of us would prefer T2, which is corroboration.
-T2 is considered corroborated because it survived many refuting tests, which adds to its value, versus T1 which has not faced any refutations yet.
Corroboration can be read in 2 different ways:
-Backward looking or forward looking
-Backward- cannot explain why we prefer 2 to 1
-Forward- assumes future looks like past, problem of induction
-Either way theory cannot explain why we prefer 2 to 1
Discuss the following two objections to Popper’s view: (a) The holism problem; and (b) The observation problem.
Holism:
-how can you tell which theory is refuted?
-if we take the theory, T1, “if X is water, then it boils at 100°c” and then we make the observation that X does not boil at 100°c, then Popper would say X is not water, T1 is refuted.
-testing T1 relies on other theories such as liquid (T2), measuring (T3), boiling (T4), etc. In this case, how do we know which of these theories is refuted? Why should we assume T1 is refuted and not T2 or T3? Maybe our concept of measuring or boiling is wrong, making T1 wrong.
-any time you find a refutation/defeater, it challenges the whole network of the theory. According to logic, we know one of the theories is false, but we don’t know which one. It comes down to a matter of decision when choosing which theory is refuted.
Observation problem:
-who says the observation is reliable?
-if I make the observation “this is a black swan,” how can we know for certain this is true, since I am a fallible person?
-The swan could be painted black, a robot, or we could be living in the matrix, there is no way to know.
-I could bring the swan to other scientists and let them observe it, but because truth has no value, we cannot know if it is really a black swan.
-If I wanted to use this observation to refute the theory “all swans are white,” the authenticity of the observation could continuously be questioned, so where do we stop? Ultimately it is a decision, which is not purely rational or logical.
