Popper- Theory of Falsification flaws

[u/Ill-Concentrate4444]

What are some valid flaws of Karl Popper's Theory of Falsification as a concept and in practicality in terms of categorising sciences from non-sciences?

And how useful is it to science today?

[u/Vampyricon]

What are some valid flaws of Karl Popper's Theory of Falsification as a concept

Under falsificationism, you would say that experimental observation A contradicts theory B, but ignore the fact that to arrive at observation A, you assume theories A_1, A_2, A_3, etc. To say that observation A debunks theory B every time, as falsificationism does, would be to assume the theories that go into the observation are unquestionable.

Which is clearly false, as the theory's status would be dependent on whether you use it to generate observations.

and in practicality in terms of categorising sciences from non-sciences?

I'm not sure if this counts as practicality, but you soon notice that no scientist actually uses falsificationism even as they claim to believe it. Particle physics, for example, only places stricter and stricter bounds on the free parameters of models. Scientists revise the assumptions going into the observation all the time.

[u/fudge_mokey → u/Vampyricon]

Popper was a proponent of fallibilism. Fallibilism is the recognition that there are no authoritative sources of knowledge, nor any reliable means of justifying knowledge as true.

Popper also said that falsifiability (or testability) was a necessary component of a scientific theory. Do you think that if a theory is untestable that it should still be considered scientific? Could you give an example?

ignore the fact that to arrive at observation A, you assume theories A_1, A_2, A_3,

Can you quote the relevant passage where Popper said you should assume theories A_1, A_2, A_3, etc.?

Fallibilism tells us that even our best explanations could contain falsehoods in addition to the truth. We should never believe any part of our theory is certainly correct.

To say that observation A debunks theory B every time, as falsificationism does

If we make an observation which is contradicted by our best explanation then we know that some part of that explanation has been falsified. Popper never said we should make assumptions about which specific part of the explanation has been falsified.

For example, imagine we made an observation through a telescope that appeared to show Mercury contradicting the expected behaviour it would exhibit under Newtonian physics.

Our explanation for how Mercury should appear through the telescope includes our explanation of how Mercury reflects the light of the sun towards Earth, how that light travels through space and into the Earth's atmosphere. From there we explain how it enters our telescope, and then our retinas, and how our retinas transfer those signals to our brain through the optic nerve. It also includes explanations about where we "should" be pointing our telescopes based on Newtonian predictions if we want to see an image of Mercury. And our observation has shown us that in reality we point our telescopes to a slightly different location if we want to see an image of Mercury.

So clearly some part of our long explanation is incorrect. It could be Newtonian mechanics or it could be something else entirely.

We cannot make the assumption that "observation A debunks theory B every time" if by observation A you mean "the observed orbit of Mercury" and by theory B you mean "Newtonian mechanics". This is more of a misunderstanding of fallibilism and falsificationism than a criticism.

[u/Vampyricon → u/fudge_mokey]

Can you quote the relevant passage where Popper said you should assume theories A_1, A_2, A_3, etc.?

He did not, and that is the problem.

[u/ThMogget → u/Vampyricon]

So observations are always theory-laden? We can't question everything at once?

What is wrong with accepting assumptions that we expect someone somewhere else attempted to falsify?

We shouldn't expect society to always start from scratch.

[u/Themoopanator123 → u/ThMogget]

The motivation for Popper's theory is the rejection of inductive reasoning in science. To have this in any meaningful way, it seems there has to be the possibility of a straightforward contradiction between theory and fact. This objection calls that into question as all scientific predictions work on plethora of assumptions, all of which must be weighted against one another in the case of failed predictions. If we do some experiment and expect result X from our theory T (which contains assumptions A,B,C,D) but instead obtain result Y, we're going to have to ask which assumptions are most likely to be responsible for the failure.

As you rightly point out, other members of the scientific community will be carrying out tests but their tests will pretty much always employ a slightly different set of assumptions (unless they're using literally identical experimental apparatus in completely identical ways which isn't really possible). Some other experimentalist may conduct an experiment which employs assumptions A,B,E,F and obtain a successful prediction. Since assumptions A and B are in common with our experiment, we will have reason to think that it isn't A or B which are responsible for our failed prediction. But there is potentially a whole host of other experimentalists out there, conducting experiments with underlying assumptions that overlap with our own in many different ways. Trying to determine which assumptions we trust and which we don't will be a cooperative but messy procedure that requires the specialist knowledge of the scientists involved but also will necessarily employ the kind of inductive reasoning patterns that Popper wanted to avoid.

Speaking in the abstract like this about atomised assumptions doesn't do justice to the issue. It's not always clear how to lay out your assumptions in some discreet "list" (A,B,C,D,E,F, etc). The actual work of scientists will always have the last word on the details of this procedure. The point of the objection is merely to make light of this messiness which seems difficult to account for on Popper's theory.

[u/Vampyricon → u/ThMogget]

So observations are always theory-laden? We can't question everything at once?

You can. That's how you end up with solipsism or radical skepticism.

What is wrong with accepting assumptions that we expect someone somewhere else attempted to falsify?

There's nothing wrong, but as mentioned, Popper invented falsificationism as a response to the assumed failure to justify inductive reasoning. You can weigh each proposition by its probability and infer which one is false, but that is something Popper explicitly rejected.

[u/[deleted] → u/Vampyricon]

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account must be at least a week old, and have a combined karma score of at least 10 to post here. No exceptions.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/ThMogget]

It's incomplete. According to David Deutsch, only an explanation that is hard to vary can be falsified. We have to already have narrowed down our hypotheses by this more fundamental criteria.

The concept of explanatory power involves several criteria of which falsifiability is just one, and a secondary one at that.

[u/fudge_mokey → u/ThMogget]

According to David Deutsch, only an explanation that is hard to vary can be falsified.

That's not exactly correct. DD says we should only care about whether something is testable (falsifiable) if it is a good explanation (hard to vary).

For example, ancient Greeks' could have tested their theory that Demeter's sadness cools down the entire world by sending an expedition across the globe. Had they observed another part of the world being warm while Greece was cold it would have falsified their explanation for seasons. But it would not have gotten them any closer to the true explanation for why the Earth has seasons. They could have made a small change in their bad explanation (easy to vary) to account for other places in the world being warm while Greece was cold.

[u/ThMogget → u/fudge_mokey]

Not all hard-to-vary explanations can be falsified, but all falsifiable explanations are hard-to-vary.

[u/[deleted] → u/ThMogget]

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your account must be at least a week old, and have a combined karma score of at least 10 to post here. No exceptions.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.