HS 222

CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

OVERVIEW

• the life and times of Karl Popper

• falsifiability (demarcation); falsificationism (methodology); falsification (testing)

• the progress of science – conjectures and refutation

• problems with Popper’s philosophy of science

SOME PRELIMS

• confirmation, verification, falsification

• demarcation
• science, pseudo-science, non-science
• good science, bad science
FALSIFICATION

• what is the relation between theory and observational support?

• if confirmation, then the methodology of science is inductivist

• confirmation in the light of the problem of induction

• Popper’s solution – reject confirmation altogether, science does not need induction
• falsification is the how theory testing operates
• tools of deductive logic are enough to characterise theory testing
• generalisations can be refuted* if the observation fails to match the prediction
• T → O; ~O; therefore ~T

• falsificationism – scientific methods are justified because scientific hypothesis (necessarily) have
the potential to be refuted by some possible observation
• scientific theories are falsifiable – they cannot be compatible with all kinds of observations

• Popper: falsifiability is the demarcation criteria

• Q: does all science meet this criteria? does all pseudo-science get excluded?
• observations never gives reasons to believe in the truth of a theory, though they may supply
reasons to believe in its falsity

• Popper insisted that we can never be sure about the truth of a theory
• we cannot even reasonably increase our confidence in the theory

• acc to Popper(ians), the best we can say is that our theory has not yet been falsified
• recommends a tentative attitude towards theories

• yet Popper believed that science aims for true theories!

• (verisimilitude)
CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS

• acc to Popper, science progresses by a 2 step iterative process

1. conjecture – come up with ‘bold’ hypotheses
2. refutation – try to falsify the hypotheses

• a good conjecture is more risky

• should not be ad hoc
• should aim to increase the breadth of the theory’s application
• should aim to increase the precision of the theory’s predictions
• ‘conjecture-refutation’ – descriptive, as well as normative

• a ideal scientist is both creative and critical

• intellectual virtues – creativity, open mindedness
• what if group A proposes and group B disposes?

• evolutionary theory and evolutionary epistemology

• evolution – blind variations, and natural selection
• disanalogies?
REVISITING FALSIFICATION

• recall holism: T & A → O; ~O → ~T v ~A

• in case of falsification, logic doesn’t compel us to give up on the theory!

• some As would be conjectural; but till when can the blame be deflected away from the
theory?
• Popper shifts the focus away from features of a theory to features of scientist
• decisions (intersubjective agreements) play a crucial role in deciding which observation reports
(corrigible) to accept

• decision to hang on to/reject scientific theories vs pseudo-scientific theory – difference?

• Popper’s account – are theories which make probabilistic claims unfalsifiable?

• acc. to Popper, probabilistic laws are falsifiable ‘in practice’, based on decisions

• Q: does all science meet falsifiability criteria? does all pseudo-science get excluded?
CORROBORATION

• practical uses of ‘confirmation’ and the cognitive benefits of confirmation

• Popper’s proposes we use ‘corroboration’ to make sense of the practical uses of

‘confirmation’

• can an inductive sceptic really claim the practical benefits of confirmation?

TAKING STOCK

• falsifiability demarcates scientific theories from pseudo-scientific ones

• science progresses through a 2-step process of conjecture-refutation

• the methodology of science is deductive (falsificationism), but

• not possible to explain science through logical analysis alone
• the context of discovery is philosophically important