RL -> Falsification Flashcards
Falsification:
Poppers theory that a proposition is scientific if one could state what evidence would prove it false. This is a principle of demarcation between science and non-science, not between the meaningful and the meaningless.
Karl Popper
Popper opposed the basic assumption of the Vienna circle that what mattered was to be able to prove scientific propositions true. He pointed out that if we believe that science is about proving our views to be true, we would make no progress. When doing experiments, we should not look to verify theories, but to falsify them.
Real science is highly falsifiable, for if it were not, then it would not be informative.
A key advantage of falsifiability is, according to Popper, that some statements can be conclusively falsified when they cannot be conclusively verified
To say all giraffes have long necks is highly probable, and can only be verified by checking every giraffe that’s ever existed, whilst if a single short necked giraffe is found, then the original hypothesis is falsified
Popper would not deny there was meaning to utterances such as prayers, his point was they were not science
Antony Flew
Flew refers to Wisdoms parable of the gardener
Two explorers come upon a clearing, some parts looked well cared for whereas others did not, neither explorer could find the gardener & their experiences were the same, however their belief about the clearing was different.
Flew asks what the difference is between the apparently invisible, intangible gardener, and no gardener at all?
Although it seems to be a scientific hypothesis (that a gardener comes to the clearing) it is actually not genuinely scientific because the believer in the gardener does not accept any falsification of his views & no conclusive disproof seems possible
Flew applies this to theological assertions, which he states that for an assertion to be genuine, it must be falsifiable
‘If there is nothing which a putative assertion denies then there is nothing that it asserts’
However, nowhere does Flew say that religious beliefs are meaningless nor does he say that all religious people treat their beliefs as unfalsifiable, merely that it often seems that way.
Following this, Flew issued a challenge to the symposium, ‘What would have to occur or have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?’
R.M Hare
Blik: R.M Hares term for a belief which is life changing, but cannot be verified or falsified
Hares response to Flew was that he was right on his own ground, that religious beliefs were unfalsifiable. Hare states that religious statements have different logical status, what he refers to as ‘bliks’
An insane university student who believes all professors are out to get him will not be dissuaded by any evidence
While the lunatics view can neither be proven or disproven, it profoundly alters his life
Hare argues that the concept of blik shows what we are doing when we make a religious statement. It is not merely a sort of explanation of the world, but completely life-changing, even though unfalsifiable.
Criticisms of Hare
Flew argued that bliks do not account for the way in which religious believers think of themselves as speaking he says believers surely see themselves as making genuine assertions, which they see as true facts abut the world.
‘If they were not even intended as assertions then many religious activities would become fraudulent, or even silly
Hick argues that the notion of bliks obtain a fundamental inconsistency, as Hare provides no criterion for distinguishing between right and wrong, sane or insane bliks
‘A discrimination between sane and insane bliks is ruled out by his insistence that bliks are unverifiable and unfalsifiable’
Hicks point is that Hare has called the man a lunatic, due to having an insane blik, yet it is difficult to justify categorising a blik as insane
True believers can hold that their faith may be tested, and they may have difficulties with belief, as they are not fanatics
Basil Mitchell
Unlike Hare, Mitchell wanted to maintain that religious statements are generally factual though not straightforwardly falsifiable, he does this using his own parable;
During WWII a resistance fighter meets a Stranger who impresses him, the Stranger claims to be the head of the entire Resistance. The fighter believes him, but the Stranger warns that his faith will be tested — he will find the man he trusted working with the enemy at times Despite this, the partisan persists in his belief that the Stranger is who he claims
Mitchell’s argument is that the partisan does not deny that there is strong evidence against his belief that the Stranger is who he claims to be. Mitchell argues that to remain sane, the partisan must accept the reality of the evidence against his belief
If he does not he is ‘guilty of a failure of faith as well as logic’
But Mitchell does not argue that the believer has blind faith, they, just like the partisan, have reason for their faith
‘The partisan admits that many things may and do count against his belief’
The point is that Mitchell, as a believer, accepts that faith can be mistaken, and agrees with Flew that theological assertions must be understood as statements. While statements such as ‘God is love’ cannot be conclusively falsified, they could still be false and there is a point, beyond which would be rationally impossible to support the view.
John Hick
Hick argues;
Presumably the Stranger knows whether he is telling the truth, even if the partisan is not in a place to judge, so there is truth to be known about that statement
When the war is over the truth will come out, either the Stranger is a hero or traitor
Christianity has certain specific afterlife beliefs which mean it is possible to meet the conditions of weak verification, as Christian’s who believe in an afterlife can state some experiences which would render their beliefs probable.
The problem with this solution is that it’s an asymmetrical (Having aspects which are not equal, in this case it is verifiable but not falsifiable) solution to problems raised
There is a difference between the claims of eschatological verification (Which we are never able to falsify) and Hicks comments on Mitchells parable. In the case of the stranger, we can state the conditions of falsification. This suggest that we cannot say that eschatological verification meets the same conditions as Mitchells parable of the partisan. For Mitchell, there is always the potential that we can say we were wrong in our beliefs.
