Philosophy of the Sciences, Lecture 3, 13/09/03 The Demarcation Problem and Falsificationism Science is an invention, a relatively recent invention. There was a time in our history when there was nothing to which weâ€™d happily apply our word â€˜scienceâ€™.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Demarcation Problem and Falsificationism
There was a time in our history when there was nothing to which we’d happily apply our word ‘science’.
Not until the 17th century did what we would recognize as modern physics emerge (via Newton and his discoveries) as a separate discipline.
What we think of as biology didn’t exist until 1859 (when it emerged with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species).
Psychology as we know it had to wait until the beginning of the 20th century, and computer science is an infant—only a little more than 50 years old!
Physics and biology are descendants of the philosophical sub-discipline known as metaphysics—roughly, the study of what there is: what fundamental kinds and properties there are and how they relate.
And psychology descends from philosophical reflection on the nature of the mind and its properties, i.e. the philosophy of mind. Computer science, for its part, stems from philosophy’s millennium long interest in logic.
Interestingly, all of these sciences grew from philosophical roots. (From the concerns of the ancient Greek philosophers and primarily from the concerns of Aristotle).
What distinguishes science from non-science? (the demarcation problem)
(1) Science offers explanations.
(2) Science is objective.
(3) Science is descriptive.
(4) Science makes predictions.
The trouble with the initial proposals:
They don’t do any distinguishing.
The wrong answer to the demarcation problem:
Science is inductive; it proceeds by observation and experiment.
Non-scientific theories can be based on observation and experiment.
“…astrology with its stupendous mass of empirical evidence based on observation—on horoscopes and biographies.”
Popper’s 4 candidate theories:
(1) Einstein’s theory of relativity.
(3) Freud’s psychoanalysis
(4) Adler’s individual psychology
Popper’s intuition: (1) is scientific, (2)-(4) not.
Truth not the issue. At the time, Popper didn’t believe that Einstein’s theory was true.
Exactness also not the issue.
Exposure brought about an “intellectual conversion” and confirming instances of the theory were seen everywhere.
Indeed, nothing seemed to count as disconfirmation, as evidence against the theory.
Every observation could be interpreted in light of the theory.
The difference with respect to (1)— Einstein’s theory: The theory makes risky predictions, predictions which, if false, sink the theory.
E’s theory has the result that light, like material bodies, is attracted by heavy bodies such as the sun. This led to the prediction that the light from certain stars—those which appear in the night sky as close to the sun—would appear, if observed in daylight, as slightly shifted away from their normal position, slightly further away from the sun.
This prediction can’t be tested in ordinary circumstances because of the sun’s brightness.
But during an eclipse one can take a photograph of a star’s apparent position in the daytime sky.
And then photos of the star taken in the day and in the night can be compared and its apparent distance from the sun can be measured.
And the prediction of Einstein’s theory was shown to be correct.
The significance of this, acc. to Popper: Einstein’s theory, unlike (3)-(4), is incompatible with certain possible results of observation.
In other words, E’s theory is refutable or falsifiable (the term that has stuck). It is possibly false. If our observations hadbeen different, it would have been shown to be false (though they weren’t and it wasn’t).
This, then, is Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem: A theory is scientific just in case it is falsifiable.
Remember: Truth is not the issue for Popper. Accordingly, his solution to the demarcation problem doesn’t make being true a criterion for being science.
Theories that are true may be falsifiable.
But, equally, theories that are false may be falsifiable as well.
Some consequences and corollaries of Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem:
Some genuinely falsifiable theories, when falsified, are maintained by their admirers either by re-casting the theory or adding auxilliary assumptions. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory only by destroying or reducing the theory’s claim to scientific status. (Popper calls such rescue operations conventionalist twists.)
(1)—Einstein’s theory of relativity—passes. It makes risky predictions (re: the apparent positions of stars, e.g.)
Astrology fails. Vagueness of its predictions makes it unfalsifiable.
(2)—the Marxist theory of history—fails. It once passed, but it was given various conventionalist twists.
(3) and (4)—the psychoanalytic theories—fail. No conceivable bit of human behavior could refute them.
Non-science but not unimportant. Analogy with primitive myths. These myths often shape later science (the ancient Greek examples).