What is Good Science: A Survey of some fundamental problems
From BluWiki
"A survey of some fundamental problems" (1980) is an Article by Karl Raimund Popper that was published in The Logic of Scientific Discovery (ISBN 0415278430]).
Summary
- there is a problem of induction: the inductive logic (the use of inductive methods), which is widely applied in empirical sciences, is logically not justified; any conclusion drawn in this manner, can still turn out to be false! (p.27)
- an inference is called inductive if it passes from singular statements to universal statements (hypotheses, general laws) (p.27/28)
- a principle of induction must be a synthetic statement (a statement whose negation is not self-contradictory but logically possible) (p.28)
- Popper: the difficulties inductive logic brings with it are insurmountable (p.29) (for example the statement that inductive inferences can attain some degree of reliability or probability (p.29/30))
- there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas, or even a sound reconstruction of this process (p.32)
- there are four different lines along which the deductive testing of a theory could be carried out: (p.32/33)
- logical comparison of the conclusions among themselves to test internal consistency of the system
- investigation of the logical form of the theory (empirical, scientific, tautological)
- comparison with other theories
- testing of the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions
- as regards the testing, singular statements or predictions are deduced from the new theory and compared with the results of practical applications (p.33)
- if the results are positive, then the theory is verified; if the conclusions are negative, then the theory from which they were logically deduced is falsified (p.33)
- imaginative criticism: by rejecting the inductive method Popper is removing the barriers between empirical science and metaphysical speculation (p.34)
- Popper’s reply: rejection of inductive logic just because it does not provide a suitable distinguishing mark, respectively a suitable criterion of demarcation between them (p.34)
- this finding of a criterion is what he calls the problem of demarcation (p.34)
- the inductivist criterion of demarcation fails to draw a dividing line between scientific and metaphysical systems since both are systems of meaningless pseudo-statements (p.37)
- Popper’s criterion of demarcation can be regarded as a proposal for an agreement or convention (p.37)
- the concept of empirical science (p.38)
- there must be three requirements an empirical system needs to satisfy (p.39)
- it must be synthetic
- it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation
- it must be a system distinguished in some way from other such systems
- experience as a distinctive method
- the criterion of demarcation within inductive logic equals the requirement that all statements of empirical science must be capable of being decided, with respect to their truth and falsity, but if there is no way to determine whether a statement is true than the statement has no meaning whatsoever (p.40)
- theories are never empirically verifiable! (p.40)
- A system is only empirical or scientific if it is capable of being tested by experience (p.40)
- Not the verifiability, but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation -> it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience (p.41)
- Usage of Kant’s understanding of Objectivity (Conviction) and Subjectivity (subjective causes of judging) (p.44)
- Objectivity of scientific statements is connected with the construction of theories (p.44)
- Only with the help of rules, regularities and repetition, can we test them (p.44)
- Problem: a subjective experiment can never justify a scientific statement (p.46)
- systems of theories are tested by deducing them from statements of a lesser level of universality -> requires testing as infinitum
- difference: tests are not meant to establish or justify a particular system (p.47) One cannot test forever, therefore, it is necessary that scientific statements have the capability of being tested (p.48)
Critique / Questions / Reflection / Comments
