Pros And Cons Of Falsificationism

Philosophy of Science

Pros and cons of falsificationism

Falsificationism

Popper s theory of falsification argues that science should focus on trying to falsify a theory, rather than relying on the accumulation of positive inductive evidence. This theory has become very popular and widely used among scientists, much more so than among philosophers. It is easy to see how falsificationism has grasped the attention of the scientific community, since apart from testing the truth and stability of a scientific theory, it also lends a hand to the demarcation problem, between science and non-science (such as the problem of creation science is it science or non-science?). Its value in determining whether a theory is scientific or not, comes from the argument that unfalsifiable theories are unscientific.

Popper also claimed that theories with great explanatory power and those that are so general as to be compatible with any particular observations are suspect (pg. 67, Ladyman et al. 2002). Here, he referred to the social sciences (like psychoanalysis) and social movements (like Marxism) as being too vague to be subject to refutation by experience (pg. 68, Ladyman et al. 2002). Therefore, in this context, Popper s theory of falsification gives us an upper hand when analysing social sciences as it helps in understanding that different social theories might not be as reliable and they require continuous improvement and revisiting to adapt to new evidence and social changes.

Overall, the advantage of the theory of falsification relies in the quest for discerning between science and non-science, distinguishing between theories capable of novel-predictions versus theories that are vague or too general and seem to have a great explanatory power after the fact and, finally, finding theories that prove reliable by surviving continuous attempts to falsify them.

The downside of falsificationism is the Duhem problem (among others). This states that an experiment [ ] can never condemn an isolated hypothesis but only a whole theoretical group (pg. 77, Ladyman et al. 2002). In other words, this argument states that the theory and/or background assumptions (one, two, three or all) are wrong. Either way, the entire theoretical group must be taken as a whole and put under scrutiny. Another interesting dilemma was raised by the American philosopher W.v.O. Quine, who challenged the status quo, by saying that falsification could indicate the refutation of the laws of logic rather than the hypothesis.

Duhem-Quine problem of falsificationsim together with other reputable arguments against Popper s theory (such as the problem of unfalsifiable scientific principles, the problem of existential statements or the notion of degree of falsifiability) point at the controversies and down-sides of Popper s philosophical theory of the scientific method. Nevertheless, as we have seen, Popper s falsificationism brings value into the scientific community, although by no means is it sufficient in itself to determine precisely where the truth lies.

Bibliography:

Ladyman, J. (2001). Falsificationism , Understanding Philosophy of Science. Routledge