Week 3 - Verification and Falsification

Question 1

Popper’s Critical Rationalism

Answer 1

Popper’s view on science: Science should not aim to confirm theories but to falsify them. Confirmation leads to inductive errors and minimal empirical content.

Critical Rationalism:
Scientists should actively try to falsify their own theories, only those that survive intense scrutiny can be trusted.
- scientific knowledge is provisional and falsifiable
- non-scientific knowledge: not falsifiable

Problem: observations can’t conclusively falsify a theory

Question 2

Critical Rationalism

Answer 2

1. Theory-laden observation:
   - searchlight theory: theory guides what we observe
   - we need theories to know what to observe
   - even observational instruments embed theory
   - no such thing as pure, theory-free observation

Big Data - a critique:
- doesn’t start from theory, just gathers as much data as possible
- finds correlations, not casual explanations
- a starting point for theory, not a replacement

2. Problem of Induction
   - confirmation is always limited: we cannot generalise reliably from observed to unobserved cases
   - statements with less empirical content are more likely to be true, but less useful scientifically

Popper’s Approach:
- Rationalist: create theories with high empirical content
- Critical: attempt to falsify them through testing
- trial and error learning process

Question 3

The Duhem-Quine Thesis

Answer 3

Can we really falsify a theory?
- testing involves many assumptions (not just main hypothesis)
- when falsified, we don’t know if the theory or the assumptions/instruments are wrong

Quine’s View:
- no strict line between analytic (definition-based) and synthetic (empirical) sentences
- every test involves a whole network of beliefs, not isolated sentences
- decision about which part to reject is pragmatic, not logical

Duhem’s insight:
- hypothesis testing always relies on background assumptions (instruments, definitions)
- we never test a hypothesis in isolation, but always as part of a larger web of assumptions and theories
- if the test “fails”, you don’t know for sure which part is actually wrong

Conclusion: Falsification is not straightforward - it’s always theory and context-dependent

Question 4

Kuhn’s View on Scientific Development

Answer 4

• Science evolves in a non-liner way with a clear pattern
• Initially, there are debates around methods and epistemological or ontological assumptions
• These disagreements often lead to the formation of different schools of thought
• In scientific research, scientists usually work within a specific paradigm (set of agreed methods and theories), but new breakthroughs often emerge that challenge existing paradigms
• Paradigms gradually evolve to include:
  1. Fundamental theories
  2. Breakthrough discoveries
  3. Shared scientific values
  4. Methodological prescriptions

When paradigms function well Kuhn calls this phase “Normal Science”. During this phase, scientists solve problems within the framework of an accepted paradigm without challenging it.

Question 5

Anomalies and Scientific Revolutions

Answer 5

• Anomalies arise when something cannot be explained by the existing paradigm
• Initially, scientists try to solve these anomalies within the paradigm. However, when the existing paradigm fails to resolve the anomaly, it may trigger a scientific revolution
• New paradigms emerge when a breakthrough explanation addresses the anomaly, but the old paradigm must be replaced because it cannot explain the new findings

Question 6

Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts

Answer 6

Paradigms consists of 4 key elements:
1. Symbolic generalisations (e.g. formulas like F=ma)
2. Exemplars (e.g. practical examples of applying a theory)
3. Scientific values (shared values within a scientific community)
4. Methodological prescriptions (rules for conducting research)

Paradigm Shift
- When science abandons an old framework (paradigm) and adopts a new one because the old one can no longer explain certain problems.
- Kuhn emphasises that one cannot throw away an old theory until a new one is ready to replace it.

2 Kinds of Scientific Activities:
1. Normal Science: cumulative growth within the existing paradigm
2. Revolutionary Science: a shift to new paradigm when the old one fails to solve the puzzle
- scientists operate within paradigms, and the process of normal science continues until a revolutionary theory replaces the old paradigm

Question 7

Kuhn’s Critique of Positive Science

Answer 7

• Kuhn rejects the idea that scientific knowledge is purely based on observation and logic
• Instead, theories and theoretical concepts cannot be reduced to mere observation
• The problem of induction means that new observations could change the truth of any theory
• Kuhn challenges the idea that science progresses by confirming or verifying theories, instead, science progresses through paradigm shifts triggered by anomalies

Question 8

Conclusions Based on Kuhn

Answer 8

1. Truth exists within paradigms:
   - Kuhn argues that truth is contextual and depends on the paradigm in which it is evaluated
   - truth is relative to the paradigm
2. No independent criterion to choose between paradigms:
   - Kuhn’s view is seen as relativistic because there is no objective way to judge between competing paradigms: the choice is pragmatic
3. Science as a human activity:
   - Science is social and involves human processes, including the interplay of language, values, and assumptions

Question 9

4 Theories of Truth

Answer 9

• Correspondence Theory: Truth corresponds to reality
• Coherence Theory: Truth is consistent with what we already know
• Consensus Theory: Truth is agreed upon by the scientific community
• Pragmatic Theory: Truth is based on practical outcomes, the best understanding we have at a given time

Question 10

Critiques of Various Theories of Truth

Answer 10

1. Popper’s Critique: Popper’s falsification theory claims we can never truly confirm a general theory but can only falsify it.
2. Kuhn/Quine/Duhem Critique: We cannot always falsify a theory because when observations conflict with a theory, we can choose to discard the observation rather than the theory.
3. Kuhn’s Relativism: Kuhn’s realistic view means thats paradigms are incommensurable. This an lead to a situation where no independent criterion can be used to determine which paradigm is better.
4. Meta-Theories: Some meta-theories in science may not be verifiable or falsifiable, they exist as theoretical frameworks that cannot be conclusively proven true or false