The Falsification Debate

Question 1

What is Falsification?

Answer 1

• Karl Poppers theory that a proposition is scientific if one can state what evidence would prove it false
• This acts as a demarcation between science and non-science NOT meaningful and meaningless

Question 2

What was the falsification symposium?

Answer 2

• A group of dialogue where speakers try to answer a given question

Question 3

How does Karl Popper oppose the logical positivists through falsification theory?

Answer 3

• Argues the assumption that we must prove our scientific view as mistaken
• Popper argues that trying to prove our own views true would lead to no progress, we should not verify but falsify
• We must criticise, scrutinise and refine our theories to produce better ones
• Not the exception that proves the rule but rather the exception that disproves the rule

Question 4

Quote Antony Flew on what makes something scientific?

Answer 4

“prepared to specify what would have to happen… for it to be falsified”

Question 5

Give an example of falsification as scientific method?

Answer 5

• A meteorologist who says it will rain somewhere at some time is much less specific than one who says it will rain at 3pm in Slough
• The second statement is more likest to have an error, this makes it more scientific as we know exactly what will need to happen to falsify it

Question 6

Give an example of a statement where it is easier to use falsification rather than verification?

Answer 6

• To say all giraffes have a long neck can be verified to an extent, e.g checking the neck of every giraffe, past, present and future
• It is much easier to falsify, the moment you find one with a short neck the statement has been falsified

Question 7

Quote Antony Flew on the purpose of falsification?

Answer 7

“a criterion not of meaning but of scientific status”
- Used to determine whether a statement is scientific, not meaningful or meaningless
- He would not deny that religious prayers, ethical commands or poetry are meaningless, they are simply not scientific
- He attacks marxism and psychiatry as non-scientific, not as meaningless

Question 8

What is Antony Flews example of a parable?

Answer 8

• Uses an example of John Wisdoms ‘Parable of the Gardner’ in his article ‘Gods’
• Two explorers come across a clearing in a jungle, some parts are well kept and some parts are extremely messy
• One man says there is a Gardner who takes care of the ground whereas the other takes the view that the ground is not cared for
• Neither person experienced something different yet came to very different conclusions
• Wisdom makes the point that the difference between believer and non-believer is not the facts of the world but rather how they are interpreted

Question 9

How does Antony Flew interpret the ‘Parable of the Gardner’

Answer 9

• He asks whether there is a difference between the invisible, intangible, scentless and soundless Gardner and whether there is no Gardner at all
• He argues what seemed to be a genuine scientific hypothesis of there being a Gardner is not scientific at all, as the believer in the Gardner does not accept any falsification of his views and cannot be disproven
• He applies this to theological and philosophical assertions about God

Question 10

What does Antony Flew believe a statement must be for it to be a genuine assertion?

Answer 10

• Must be falsifiable
• Acknowledges for a believer nothing can falsify their belief of God, e.g the problem of evil is responded to with Gods love being different
• The religious hold their belief in an unfalsifiable way, it is non-scientific, NOT meaningless

Question 11

What is definition of ‘blik’ as used by R.M. Hare

Answer 11

• Hares term for a belief that is life-changing but cannot be verified for falsified
• Uses this to agree with Flew that religious statements are unfalsifiable, but he believes they are of a different logical status
• He believes all religious statements are bliks

Question 12

What is R.M. Hare’s example of the insane university student to show how bliks work?

Answer 12

• Uses the ex of an insane university student who believes all the dons are out to get him
• For the student no evidence will disprove or falsify his view, he would think he’s being tricked to be killed
• Despite it being non-falsifiable it greatly alters the way he lives his life

Question 13

How does Hare argue bliks greatly affect our lives?

Answer 13

• He gives the example of someone driving a car
• We assume the structure of the car remains solid, we cannot prove nor disprove this but we believe it to be true nonetheless

Question 14

How does Hare link bliks to religious statements?

Answer 14

• He argues it is not falsifiable, but is completely life-changing
• The effect of the blik is that the religious language is of deep concern and alters our lives greatly

Question 15

How does Antony Flew argue against Hares idea of ‘bliks’ ?

Answer 15

• Does not account for the way religious believers THINK they are speaking
• They see themselves as making genuine factual assertions
• If a religious belief is merely a blik then “surely he is not Christian at all” - there are no cosmological assertions from the believer

Question 16

How does John Hick argue against Hare’s idea of bliks?

Answer 16

• Argues they have an inconsistency as Hare does not give us criterion between right and wrong, sane or insane bliks
• “no basis for… sane or insane”
• Hare calls the man out for having an insane blik bit if they cannot be verified nor falsified how can we characterise a blik as insane?

Question 17

How could one argue against Hicks criticism of bliks?

Answer 17

• Insanity could be a case of when someone does not entertain the idea that they are wrong
• He does not allow anything to go against his own belief, this is a mark of insanity
• There is a difference between fanaticism and faith, faith is accepting the reality of being wrong
• Hare’s lunatic has no possibility of being wrong, that’s why he is a lunatic

Question 18

What was the aim of Basil Mitchell’s contribution?

Answer 18

• Wanted to maintain that religious statements are genuinely factual but not as straightforwardly falsifiable

Question 19

What is the context to Mitchells parable?

Answer 19

• During WW2 the resistance was formed in occupied countries to fight the Gestapo
• The resistance was formed into cells to maintain secrecy, with a dozen or so in each cell so if they got caught the entire resistance would not be unravelled

Question 20

What is Mitchells parable?

Answer 20

• A resistance fighter meets a stranger (GOD) who impresses him deeply and later reveals that he is the head of the entire resistance
• The stranger warns that his faith will be sorely tested and sometimes he might see him working with the enemy
• Despite never conversing again the Partisan believes that the stranger was who he said he was, even when seeing him in the occupying forces uniform

Question 21

What does Mitchell argue using the parable?

Answer 21

• The Partisan does deny there is strong evidence against what he believes the stranger to be, to remain sane he accepts this
• In the same way if a believer does not accept there is strong evidence against the belief in a loving God then she is guilty of self-delusion and belief becomes mere reassurance

Question 22

How does Mitchell’s argument then differ from Hare’s?

Answer 22

• He argues that the believer does not have blind faith but rather has a reason for their belief, a belief in the personal character of the Stranger (GOD)
• The believer accepts that faith can be mistaken
• Argues that religious statements are assertions, the Partisan makes an assertion as believing the Stranger is truthful
• Partisan has one interpretation of the facts and it is equally likely he is wrong as the person who has an alternate interpretation
• Mitchell himself warns of the ‘constant’ danger of turning to blind faith

Question 23

What is John Hicks idea of Eschatological Verification?

Answer 23

• He argues that Christianity has specific afterlife beliefs that allow for at least weak verification as we can state what would make it probably
• The same way Ayer’s ex of mountain and moons
• If I believe I will see Christ after death in heaven, there can be weak verification if I die and then experience this

Question 24

Quote Hick and explain whether he thinks faith statements are falsifiable?

Answer 24

“Verifiable if true but not falsifiable if false”
- He has equated verification theory with falsification, Christian beliefs may satisfy the demands of weak verification but failed to demonstrate against the claims of the falsification principle
- The claims of faith are not falsifiable, they are not scientific hypothesis

Question 25

How does Hick add to Mitchells parable with eschatological verification?

Answer 25

• He argues we cannot falsify eschatological verification but with the parable we can
• At the end of the war we can see whether the Stranger was telling the truth and falsify the Partisans claims
• Eschatological verification does not meet the same conditions as the parable, for Mitchell a true believer can have falsification