Re(2): testability

[Lars_Bergquist@public.se (Lars Bergquist)]

On 95-02-23 at 04.02, Crpntr@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> The 
> references, in fact, show that others have also realized this heresy
> (oh  shock!), notably a study by Kern et al (1983, Scientists'
> understanding  of propositional logic: an experimental
> investigation; Social Studies of  Science 13:131-146).  They
> conclude that the role of falsification may  not be as critical as
> is often argued.

Well, this is not exactly heresy. Imre Lakatos pointed out quite a
long time ago that if science was to be done according to Popperian
precepts, then we would have NO science--all theories are strictly
speaking falsified from the beginning, in that you can always dredge
up some fact which your hypothesis won't cover. Popper was NOT
a scientist. He was not even a philosopher. He was a logician (and,
not incidentally, a political ideologist). Popper's logicism, inherited
from his Austrian intellectual environment, was extreme. Lakatos 
seems to have been one of the first science philosophers to actually
take interest in what scientists do (in contradistinction to what they
should do, in the philosopher's not very humble opinion).

The present consensus seems to be that theories are not adopted
because they cannot be falsified, neither are they abandoned just
because someone has found some recalcitrant fact. They are adopted
because they "explain" more than previous theories did, i.e. they
integrate more facts with our canon of organized facts; and they are
abandoned because a better theory is found. Even the physical
sciences are full of "falsified" theories which people make use of
because they make useful predictions. The life sciences have even 
less use for Popperianism. Science, and even scientific theory-
building, is not an excercise in formal logic. Read Lakatos--and 
Kuhn, whose reasoning is quite similar. Even if you do not buy their
reasoning one hundred percent, it is clear that PROOF (not to speak
of TRVTH) have no place in real-life science. Mathematicians and
lawyers prove things--not scientists, because all theory is 
provisional and temporary. But there are always people who are 
trying to outpop Popper...

Remember Charles Darwin, who honestly and innocently believed
his own method to be inductive ("the true Baconian method") while
his published notebooks prove that it was deductive--like all good
science!

Lars Bergquist
lars_bergquist@public.se
(lexicographer ... "a harmless drudge" according to Dr. Johnson,
so bear with me)

- via BulkRate 2.0