A survey of some fundamental problems
From BluWiki
By: K.R. Popper
In: The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Year: 1980
Pages: 27-48
London: Hutchinson
ISBN: 0-09-111720-8
Tags: European Studies, What is good Science, Popper, Philosophy, Scientific approaches, Induction, Deduction
Summary:
- Empirical sciences: Construction of hypothesis, systems or theories and test them against experience and experiment (p.27)
The Problem of Induction
- Empirical sciences are inductive methods
- Results of observation: Singular statements turn into universal statements (p.27)
- But: Inductive method is not purely logical
- Thus: inductive inference is not strictly valid, but can bear some level of reliability (p.28)
- Reichenbach: Science does not decide upon truth or false, but rather probability (p.28)
- Inductive method leads to infinite regress and is not sufficient for science (p.30)
Elimination of Psychologism No logical analysis needed of how a theory was invented/came to his inventor’s mind Distinction (p. 31): Psychology of knowledge (empirical facts) vs. logic of knowledge (logic relations) Questions of fact ./. questions of justification/validity Conceiving a idea ./. examining it logically So: Systematic approach of analyzing received from logical reconstruction/examination There is no pure logical path, but rather, every discovery contains ‘an irrational element’ – “creative intuition” (p.32)
Deductive Testing of Theories 4 ways to test a theory (p.33) Compare conclusions with one another (internal consistency) Investigation of the logical form (empirical or scientific or tautological?) Compare with other theories Empirical application of the conclusion Compare with practical results of experiments Either positive (verified) or negative (falsified) If positive, only temporarily, because subsequent might be negative -> decision overthrown Intention: replacing inductive with deductive method
The Problem of Demarcation Critique: rejecting inductive method means removal of barrier between science and speculation Author: inductive methods do not provide a sufficient distinction “the problem of inductive methods consists in asking for a logical justification of universal statements about reality, (…) because there are not genuine statements” (p.37)
Experience as a Method Def. of empirical science (p.39) Synthetic (must represent a possible world) Fulfill criteria’s of demarcation (possible experience) System has to be proven by experience (deductive method)
Falsifiability as a Criterion of Demarcation Theories have to be empirically verified or falsified! Test them with experience Author: (since dismissing inductive methods) “theories are, therefore, never empirically verified!” (p.40) Therefore: A negative result will give the empirical truth! Refutation by experience (p.41) “Consequently, it is possible by means of purely deductive inferences (…) to argue from the truth of singular statements to the falsity of universal statements”
The Problem of the Empirical Basis (…)
Scientific Objectivity + Subjective Conviction Usage of Kant’s understanding of Objectivity (Conviction) and Subjectivity subjective causes of judging) (p.44) Objectivity of scientific statements is closely connected with the construction of theories (p.44) Only through rules, regularities and repetition, we can test them! (p.44) Main point: a subjective experiment can never justify a scientific statement (inductive method) (p.46) But: “systems of theories are tested by deducing them from statements of a lesser level of universality -> requires testing as infinitum!!!!!!! [earlier, author attacked inductive methods for leading to infinite regress] Only difference, here, tests are not intended to establish or justify a system (p.47) You cannot test forever, therefore it is important that scientific statements have the capability of being tested (p.48) No statement has to be accepted as truth, because it is not testable (p.48)
Critique / Questions / Reflection:
Distinction between inductive and deductive method may have some shortcomings Inductive only leads to subjective observations (I don’t know about black sheep -> there are no black sheep) Warning: do not turn singular statements into general ones Call for more critical reflection
