A Critical Examination of Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle
Chapter One
AIM OF THE STUDY
The study aims at re-examining the method of arriving at scientific truth, the problem that are inherent in it and why Popper debunked it and opted for a better method or theory. It further seeks to establish whether or not Popper’s falsification theory is a better alternative or substitute for testing the truth of scientific statements.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
WORKS BY KARL POPPER
In the book: “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” Popper began by analyzing some epistemological problems of scientific discovery as well as scientific knowledge. He was interested in giving a logical analysis of the actual method of empirical sciences, he identified the problems associated with logic of scientific discovery which is the inductive logic. Popper rejected induction based on the fact that its conclusion often lead to probability, logical inconsistencies and an infinite regress. The following words from the author explains the problem thus:
…if we try to regard its truth as known from experience, then the very same problem which occasioned its introduction will arise all over again. To justify it, we should have to employ inductive inferences; and to justify these, we should have to assume an inductive principle of a higher order;… the attempt to base the principle of induction on experience breaks down, since it must lead to an infinite regress (29).
As a result of these problems which are in-surmountable, popper argued that theories should be tested deductively in order to arrive at truth, for him, the importance of deduction in scientific discovery cannot be underestimated. There is also a section of the book that emphasizes on the important roles metaphysics and falsifiability play in scientific discoveries, a theory attains scientific status when it is falsified by experience.
In “Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge”, Popper carefully examined how theories are superseded by another for instance, the theories of Kepler and Galileo were superseded by Newton’s better testable theory, Fresnel’s and Faradays were superseded by Maxwell’s theory and similarly Newton’s and Maxwell’s theory a were unified and superseded by Einstein’s theory. It was based on these that Popper concluded that scientific hypotheses or theories are bold conjectures, that is, inferences or propositions deduced by surmise or guesswork, which are put forward to be tested and falsified by experience. Hence, his insistence on falsifying or refuting theories. According to Popper;
Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable events is non-scientific (36).
Popper concludes that science progresses by putting forward hypotheses or theories and testing them against observable facts or phenomenon.
WORKS ON POPPER AND OTHER PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE WORKS
In the paper “History and Philosophy of Science”, Princewill Alozie maintains that Popper’s critical rationalism has much similarity with logical positivism due to the use of logic and empiricism. He avers that “it would be profitable for sciences to proceed negatively by refuting theories instead of confirming or corroborating” (144). This is because there may not be any necessary connection between sequences of events which is the problem that is inherent in induction, this leads to Popper’s theory of falsification.
CHAPTER THREE
WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF TESTING THE TRUTH OF STATEMENTS?
The concept of truth is debatable both is science and in philosophy. In philosophy, for instance, truth is relative; that is, what is true to one person might be false to the other. In this sense, truth could be viewed relatively and subjectively from the standpoint of philosophy generally and in epistemology specifically. In science, the method of testing the truth of statements was championed by the twentieth century philosophers known as the Logical Positivists. They include A. J. Ayer, Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, amongst others. These philosophers were chiefly concerned with setting up a criterion for the determination of truth as well as meaningful (scientific) utterances and the elimination of meaningless (metaphysical) utterances from philosophy and in science. In order to achieve this aim, they saw that it was necessary to postulate a principle which will serve as a condition or criterion for testing the truth of scientific statements.
This principle is known as the principle of verification which holds that a statement is meaningful or true if it can be scientifically verified. The positivists believe that all genuine knowledge fall within the realm of science; genuine scientific truths are those which are verifiable by reference to true observation statements. Lawhead explains the verifiability principle thus “the meaning of a factual statement is the method of its verification” (507). That is, for any statement to express matters of fact, it must be subjected to the method of empirical verification. It follows that this principle must always rest upon empirical observation by appealing to the senses and this is captured in Stumpf view thus; “any proposition that could not be verified by the method of observation would be said to have no meaning” (404). There are two versions of verification namely; strong verification and weak verification.
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Science is a systematic inquiry into the structure, nature and workings of the physical or external world. It seeks to understand the complexity in nature and facts employing some methods in the explanation, prediction and interpretation of natural phenomena in the universe. Science uses the verifiability principle to arrive at scientific truth which has been strongly debunked and criticized by Popper, arguing that it cannot guarantee us knowledge and truth but probability; and in epistemology, we cannot identify or equate probability with certainty or certitude.
Popper believes that no amount of positive evidence can verify the truth of hypotheses or theories, rather, a single contrary or unfavourable evidence can falsify them. Hence, his insistence that scientists should continuously falsify or refute theories in order to arrive at truth. We can sum it up by saying that the truth of scientific statements, hypotheses or theories rests in the idea of falsifiability or refutability.
Finally, if Popper’s falsifiability principle is to be completely relied upon, science would crumble, that is, science would not progress from the viewpoint of Karl Popper considering the short-comings that surrounds his idea of falsification.
CONCLUSION
Although, a theory or scientific statement be conclusively by any amount of evidence, it still makes sense to use this method alongside Popper’s falsification since it is logically possible that not all statements, theories or hypotheses can be completely falsifiable and therefore said to be talking nonsense, in so far as there is room for modifications of a theory and brought back to use again after modification upon availability of new facts and conceptual changes in that field of science.
So, instead of abandoning the inductivists’ criterion of truth, it can be used as supplement to Popper’s falsification methodology as falsification itself is not sacrosanct and science is a dynamic human intellectual and practical enterprise which cannot be denied of a method because it is through this method that scientists relate with the external world.
Furthermore, the facts about nature exist, they cannot be disputed nor denied but the manner or method of interpreting or explaining these facts into testable laws or theories may be difficult or problematic due to linguistic or contextual use of words as well as perceptual differences that are inherent in human nature. Hence, it will also make sense if philosophers can try as much as possible to use language precisely or if they can understand the logic of language.
RECOMMENDATION
Karl Popper’s immense contribution to science cannot be under-estimated because he attempts to solve the inherent problem of induction and to enlighten as well as educate us on the actual method of scientific discoveries including scientific truth. If it becomes difficult to ascertain scientific truth using the Positivists criterion, scientists can turn to Popper’s falsification principle.
Hence, Popper must be commended for his far-reaching intellectual contribution to science for his philosophy of science has created an indelible impact in the scientific enterprise.
WORKS CITED
- Aigbodioh, J. A. Philosophy of science. Issues and Problems. Ibadan: Hope Publishers, Aja, E. Meaning and Existence. Enugu: Donze Press, 1997.
- Alozie, P.I. History and Philosophy of Science. (Second Edition) Calabar: Clear Lines Publications, 2001.
- Archibong, E.I. “Quantum Theory and the Question of Scientific Objectivity” In U. Etuk (ed.) Sapientia. Jounal of Philosophy. Vol. 4, 2013. 83-105.
- Delanty G. and P. Strydom, (eds.) Philosophies of Social Science. The Classics and Contemporary Reading. London: Open University Press, 2009.
- Donald, M. B. (ed). “Verifiability”. Encyclopedia of Philosophy (second edition). New York: Gale Cengage Learning, 2006.
- French, S. Science. Key Concepts In Philosophy. London: MPG Books Ltd, 2007.
- Garvey, J. The Twenty Greatest Philosophy Books. London: Continum International Publishing Groups, 2006.
- John, E.O. and P.D.Edeh. “The scientific Method”. In A.F. Uduigwomen(ed.). Philosophy and the Rise of Modern Science. Uyo: El-Johns Publishers, 2011.
- Lawhead, W. F. The Voyage of Discovery. A Historical Introduction to Philosophy. (Second Edition) Belmont: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2002.
- Mautner, T. (ed). The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Penguin Books Ltd, 1996.
