Philosophy Ideas Database

PhilosophyIdeas.com Database | Current Total Ideas: 22,967 | home | back

green numbers give full details | back to texts | unexpand these ideas

Scientific objectivity lies in inter-subjective testing

			Full Idea: The objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested.
			From: Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934], p.22), quoted by Reiss,J/Spreger,J - Scientific Objectivity 2.4
			A reaction: Does this mean that objectivity is the same as consensus? A bunch of subjective prejudiced fools can reach a consensus. And in the middle of that bunch there can be one person who is objecfive. Sounds wrong.

Give Nobel Prizes for really good refutations?

			Full Idea: Popper implies that we should be giving Nobel Prizes to scientists who use severe tests to show us what the world is not like!
			From: comment on Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Geoffrey Gorham - Philosophy of Science 2
			A reaction: A lovely simple point. The refuters are important members of the scientific team, but not the leaders.

7780	Falsification is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science

			Full Idea: According to Popper, falsification is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science.
			From: report of Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Bryan Magee - Popper Ch.3
			A reaction: If I propose something which might be falsified in a hundred years, is it science NOW? Suppose my theory appeared to be falsifiable, but (after much effort) it turned out not to be? Suppose I just see a pattern (like quark theory) in a set of facts?

We don't only reject hypotheses because we have falsified them

			Full Idea: Popper's mistake is to hold that disconfirmation and elimination work exclusively through refutation.
			From: comment on Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Peter Lipton - Inference to the Best Explanation (2nd) 05 'Explanation'
			A reaction: The point is that we reject hypotheses even if they have not actually been refuted, on the grounds that they don't give a good explanation. I agree entirely with Lipton.

6794	If falsification requires logical inconsistency, then probabilistic statements can't be falsified

			Full Idea: In Popper's sense of the word 'falsify', whereby an observation statement falsifies a hypothesis only by being logically inconsistent with it, nothing can ever falsify a probabilistic or statistical hypothesis, which is therefore unscientific.
			From: comment on Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.5
			A reaction: In general, no prediction can be falsified until the events occur. This seems to be Aristotle's 'sea fight' problem (Idea 1703).

6795	When Popper gets in difficulties, he quietly uses induction to help out

			Full Idea: It is a feature of Popper's philosophy that when the going gets tough, induction is quietly called upon to help out.
			From: comment on Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Alexander Bird - Philosophy of Science Ch.5
			A reaction: This appears to be the central reason for the decline in Popper's reputation as the saviour of science. It would certainly seem absurd to say that you know nothing when you have lots of verification but not a glimmer of falsification.

3856	Good theories have empirical content, explain a lot, and are not falsified

			Full Idea: Popper's principles are roughly that one theory is superior to another if it has greater empirical content, if it can account for the successes of the first theory, and if it has not been falsified (unlike the first theory).
			From: report of Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by W.H. Newton-Smith - The Rationality of Science I.6

7779	There is no such thing as induction

			Full Idea: According to Popper, induction is a dispensable concept, a myth. It does not exist. There is no such thing.
			From: report of Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by Bryan Magee - Popper Ch.2
			A reaction: This is a nice bold summary of the Popper view - that falsification is the underlying rational activity which we mistakenly think is verification by repeated observations. Put like this, Popper seems to be wrong. We obviously learn from experiences.

3860	Science cannot be shown to be rational if induction is rejected

			Full Idea: If Popper follows Hume in abandoning induction, there is no way in which he can justify the claims that there is growth of scientific knowledge and that science is a rational activity.
			From: comment on Karl Popper (The Logic of Scientific Discovery [1934]) by W.H. Newton-Smith - The Rationality of Science III.3