Re:Why falsificationism is false
by leereeves on Saturday May 11, 2019 @06:46PM
(#19888845)
Here's one significant error:
> Suppose that, contrary to what actually happened, Cavendish’s experiment had yielded a result that was qualitatively incompatible with the law of universal gravitation. The reaction of physicists would certainly not have been to reject Newton’s theory of gravitation and start looking for another one.
Looking for another theory is precisely what physicists do, once experimental error, miscalculation, and misunderstanding the theory are ruled out. Hence relativity and quantum physics, and the current search for a theory that explains dark matter and dark energy.
And another:
> From a purely logical point of view, what scientists do when they blame the failure of a prediction on the background assumptions instead of theory they take to be well-established is no different from what charlatans peddling pseudoscience do...
This is arguing that "falsificationism" requires discarding a theory after a single failed experiment, but forgets that even experiments can be falsified (by finding an error in the experiment or the associated conclusions).
The difference between scientists and "charlatans peddling pseudoscience" is that when a prediction proves to be false, scientists look for an explanation.
The author forgets that the explanation might be found in the experiment or the prediction, and scientists look there first before questioning a theory that's proven itself in the past.
> Suppose that, contrary to what actually happened, Cavendish’s experiment had yielded a result that was qualitatively incompatible with the law of universal gravitation. The reaction of physicists would certainly not have been to reject Newton’s theory of gravitation and start looking for another one.
Looking for another theory is precisely what physicists do, once experimental error, miscalculation, and misunderstanding the theory are ruled out. Hence relativity and quantum physics, and the current search for a theory that explains dark matter and dark energy.
And another:
> From a purely logical point of view, what scientists do when they blame the failure of a prediction on the background assumptions instead of theory they take to be well-established is no different from what charlatans peddling pseudoscience do...
This is arguing that "falsificationism" requires discarding a theory after a single failed experiment, but forgets that even experiments can be falsified (by finding an error in the experiment or the associated conclusions).
The difference between scientists and "charlatans peddling pseudoscience" is that when a prediction proves to be false, scientists look for an explanation.
The author forgets that the explanation might be found in the experiment or the prediction, and scientists look there first before questioning a theory that's proven itself in the past.