Falsification: a Healthy and Critical Skepticism of Science
Falsificationism: A Healthy and Critical Skepticism of Science
Most people wouldn’t question that science has benefited humanity; from better health and medicine to the luxuries of technology. However, as a society we demand certainty in our scientific advances. We want to know we can treat disease without causing other illnesses, design car safety that is reliable or a computer that does not develop intelligence and take over the world. But how do scientists define this certainty? In this paper we will explore Popper’s premise for using falsificationism as the demarcation methodology for science. This will be accomplished by examining both why inductionism and verificationism are inferior methodologies and why falsificationism is superior in claiming certainty. Next I will examine Hemple’s “background assumptions” objection to falsificationism, Finally, I will debate that falsificationism will ultimately hold ground over the Hemple’s objection. First let us explore the inductionist methodology to science. Induction is a method of reasoning or establishing knowledge of some particular interest by taking specific observations and applying them to a general claim. For example, suppose I am trying to establish the best workout routine to achieve my fitness goals. Through the inquiry of various athletes and personal trainers I find a unanimous consensus that the best way to achieve my goals is through diet and exercise. Therefore, from my observations I conclude that all successful athletes reach their success through this methodology and therefore the best routine for my success will follow this methodology. Seems simple enough, I have taken various specific observations and examples and made a general claim about how to achieve fitness that seems justified and certain.
However, Popper would question the certainty of the inductivist claim. Let us examine the problem of induction and why its claims, while they may be justified, lack certainty. First let me
Most people wouldn’t question that science has benefited humanity; from better health and medicine to the luxuries of technology. However, as a society we demand certainty in our scientific advances. We want to know we can treat disease without causing other illnesses, design car safety that is reliable or a computer that does not develop intelligence and take over the world. But how do scientists define this certainty? In this paper we will explore Popper’s premise for using falsificationism as the demarcation methodology for science. This will be accomplished by examining both why inductionism and verificationism are inferior methodologies and why falsificationism is superior in claiming certainty. Next I will examine Hemple’s “background assumptions” objection to falsificationism, Finally, I will debate that falsificationism will ultimately hold ground over the Hemple’s objection. First let us explore the inductionist methodology to science. Induction is a method of reasoning or establishing knowledge of some particular interest by taking specific observations and applying them to a general claim. For example, suppose I am trying to establish the best workout routine to achieve my fitness goals. Through the inquiry of various athletes and personal trainers I find a unanimous consensus that the best way to achieve my goals is through diet and exercise. Therefore, from my observations I conclude that all successful athletes reach their success through this methodology and therefore the best routine for my success will follow this methodology. Seems simple enough, I have taken various specific observations and examples and made a general claim about how to achieve fitness that seems justified and certain.
However, Popper would question the certainty of the inductivist claim. Let us examine the problem of induction and why its claims, while they may be justified, lack certainty. First let me