Sophisticated Falsificationism



Sophisticated Falsificationism

One way to test a particular philosophy of science (inductivism, falsificationism, etc.):

Is it consistent with what we know about scientific progress?

One source of knowledge about scientific progress: history of

science

The history of science gives us information about—

• how scientists arrive at the scientific laws and theories they propose

• which scientific laws and theories were accepted and rejected by scientists at various times

• which scientific developments were more significant than others

One criticism of inductivism—Inductivism has false implications

concerning scientific progress.

inductivism history of science

1. Scientific laws and theories are Scientific laws and theories accepted or rejected in are accepted or rejected

accordance with the principle based partly on the results

of induction. of scientists’ concerted

attempts to falsify them (according to Popper and other falsificationists).

2. One confirmation/falsification of Some confirmations and

a scientific law or theory is no falsifications of scientific

more or less significant than laws and theories are more

another. significant than others.

Important Concepts:

• “ad hoc modification of a scientific theory”—a modification of a theory intended only to avoid being falsified by some observation or experimental outcome, has not testable (i.e., falsifiable) consequences that were not already testable consequences of the original theory

o E.g., modifying the phlogiston theory by claiming that phlogiston had negative weight (in order to account for the outcomes of certain experiments involving combustion).

• “confirmation of a law or theory”—a situation in which observations or experimental results agrees with a law or theory

o E.g., seeing a black crow in a tree confirms the law “All crows are black.”

• “bold conjecture”—a guess or speculation that is unlikely to be true given the background knowledge of the age in which it is made

o E.g., the prediction in 1915 that light rays would bend in strong gravitational fields (based on Einstein’s general theory of relativity)

• “cautious conjecture”—a guess or speculation that is likely to be true given the background knowledge of the era in which it is made

o E.g., the prediction in 1915 that light rays would not bend in strong gravitational fields (based on Newtonian physics)

Shortcomings of Popper’s original version of falsificationism:

1. Confirmation of scientific laws and theories plays no role in scientific inquiry; only falsification is important.

2. No distinction is drawn between substantive modifications of laws and theories and ad hoc modifications.

3. The significance of background knowledge in choosing among competing scientific theories is not adequately recognized.

Sophisticated Falsificationism—tries to do a better job of

accounting for scientific progress than the original version of

Falsificationism:

Sophisticated Falsificationism includes the following “amendments” to the original version of Falsificationism:

1. Degree of falsifiability is a comparative concept—i.e., One scientific theory is more (or less) falsifiable than another. (e.g., Newton’s laws of dynamics and gravitation vs. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion). It is not necessary to assign degrees of falsifiability to theories individually.

o general rule—Theory A is more falsifiable than theory

B if A implies B but B does not imply A.

2. Ad hoc modifications of scientific theories do not represent scientific progress because they are less falsifiable than the original theories.

3. Confirmations of bold conjectures in science are more significant (i.e., represent greater progress) than confirmations of cautious conjectures.

4. Falsifications of cautious conjectures in science are more significant (i.e., represent greater progress) than falsifications of bold conjectures.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download