06-05-2012, 11:21 PM
| || |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian
Has anyone objected to falsifiability in this thread? I haven't.
However it's clear that it does not accurate characterise scientific progress, and ought not to too! One can always dream up auxiliary hypotheses to save a theory from being falsified. Auxiliary hypotheses which might well transpire to be fruitful. Falsifiability certain has a substantial role to play though. But there's no such thing as the scientific method as such. Read Feyerabend.
Observation is fallible but the judgement that a hypothesis has been refuted must itself be open to testing and correction. This does not lead to infinite regress, since some hypotheses need fewer and weaker auxiliary hypotheses than others do to bring them down to the level of observational experience. The truth is that a well-designed experiment is one that in the face of a negative result leaves the theorist little option, beyond an aridly skeptical one, but to acknowledge that the hypothesis under test has been refuted.
So I don't see why you say it "ought not too."
Anyway, conclusive falsification is no less elusive than conclusive verification.
Also, what does Feyerabend have to do with what I've said about Critical Rationalism? He agrees that Popper corrected the logical form of general hypothesis testing.
Last edited by mszlazak; 06-06-2012 at 11:17 AM.