In his major
work “Conjectures and Refutations”
philosopher Karl Popper seeks to distinguish between science and virtual
science - between an empirical method and a method that uses observations and
experiments, but does not meet scientific criteria. For Popper theories such as
Marxism, individual psychology, and psychoanalysis impersonate the sciences,
but have more in common with primitive myths than with science. These theories are
descriptive and their believers have easily found corroborations for them.
According to Popper, any case can be interpreted according to these theories
and hence their weakness. He compares them to Einstein's theory of relativity.
Every form of human behavior, so every behavior validates them. Einstein's
predictions involved risk - if the observation proves that the phenomenon does
not exist, then the theory is unfounded. This is in contrast to the previous
three theories, which are consistent with every form of human behavior, so that
every behavior validates them.
Popper arrives
at a number of conclusions:
- · Confirmations
can be obtained for almost any theory, if only one seeks such.
- · Valid
confirmation is only confirmation of a forecast that involves risk.
- · A good
scientific theory is one that forbids the occurrence of certain things.
- · A theory that no
event can refute is not scientific.
- · A real test of a
theory is an attempt to disprove or contradict it.
- · Confirmatory
evidence is only that obtained in an unsuccessful attempt to disprove the
theory.
- · Adding an ad-hoc reinterpretation to a theory in order to succeed in confirming it destroys its scientific status.
For Popper the
criterion for determining the scientific status of a theory is the possibility
of contradicting or refuting or examining it. This criterion comes to separate
the claims of the empirical sciences from the other claims = the
"delimitation problem" - whose solution is the key to solving most of
the fundamental problems of philosophy as a science.
The "Induction
Problem": According to Hume There is no possibility of inferring theories
or providing them with a rational justification from observations. This is
because observations give an idea only of what is actually observed. Based on
what appears to us to be imagination, is allowed to affect us.
Recurrence
cannot be absolute, but cases with similarities to each other. Hence - cold
recurrence from a certain point of view. Hence - there must always be a point
of view first and only after a recurrence. That is - not similar events but
similar interpretations.
Popper argues
that scientific theories are not the essence of observations but inventions -
hypotheses that must be put to the test and rejected if they do not fit the
observations.
Observation
is a selective matter, task-dependent, interest-based, point of view. Objects
can be classified and they become similar or different as needed.
Every living
thing has innate expectations but they may be misguided. One of them is the
tendency to look for regularity. The tendency to look for regularity leads to
dogmatic thinking and behavior, to search for regularities even when they are
not. Experience and maturity may produce a careful and critical and not
necessarily dogmatic approach. The dogmatic approach is related to the attempt
to verify laws and patterns by attempting to blame them, even to the point of
ignoring rebuttals.The critical approach is willing to examine them and even
contradict them. Hence - critical approach = scientific approach. Dogmatic
approach = imaginary scientific approach. The critical approach is directed
against dogmatic beliefs.
Hence,
science must begin with a critique of myths. Theories are applied not as
examples, but with the challenge of discussing and improving them. It is an
approach of insight, rational. The most rational procedure for explaining
phenomena is trial and error - hypothesis and refutation. The most competent
theory is arrived at by refuting less qualified theories.
From
Popper's conclusions in Conjectures and
Refutations:
- · Induction -
Inference based on many observations, is a myth.
- · Science works
through hypotheses and rushes to draw conclusions.
- · Observations and
repeated attempts are used as a test for hypotheses, attempts to refute them.
- · The need for a
delimitation criterion, which only the inductive method can provide, reinforces
the erroneous belief in induction.
- · The perception
of such an inductive method, as the principle of possibility of verification,
means poor delimitation.
- · Induction gives
theories only a degree of reasonableness and uncertainty.
The logical
problem of induction stems from (a) The discovery of a day that a law cannot be
justified by ignition or experiment, (b) From the fact that science proposes
and uses rules. (C) The principle of empiricism according to which only
observation or experiment can confirm or reject claims.
According to
Popper, there is no conflict between these principles - science accepts a law
or theory as a temporary acceptance only, for experience. They can be rejected
on the basis of new evidence without necessarily abandoning the previous
evidence that motivated us to accept the theory or law in the first place.
According to Hume - it is not possible to prove a theory from observation arguments,
but it can be refuted.
Why is it
likely that undisguised claims are preferable to hidden claims? - because un-refuted
theories can still be true.
Three
problems:
- The demarcation
problem — how to distinguish between science and magic.
- The problem of
the rationality of the scientific process and the place of observation in this
process.
- The problem of
rationality arises when we accept theories for scientific and practical
purposes.
Scientists,
Popper concludes “Conjectures and Refutations”,
are looking for theories that are costly and unreasonable. But the only thing
they can do is to seek to confirm and not to verify.