The Limitations of Falsificationism
Chalmers, chapter 7:� The Limitations of Falsificationism
Problems stemming from the logical situation (87)
Recap: the �logical point� in favour of falsificationism over inductionism is that, while no finite number of observation sentences will prove a general claim, one single observation sentence will disprove it.� BUT: 1. 1. Falsificationists accept theory-dependence (and hence, fallibility) of observation sentences, therefore the observation sentence can be rejected instead of the theory. 2. 2. Furthermore, any observation sentence will rely on theories behind the instruments involved.� That means that even if the observation sentence is confirmed according to the instruments, the theory is not necessarily falsified, because the problem could be with the theory behind the instruments, or other assumptions.� (Examples: Tycho Brahe�s refutation of Copernicus, p. 89, Lakatos�s example, p. 90.) 3. 3. Finally, the falsificationist does not (despite Popper�s claims) solve the problem of induction, because the observation sentence has to be confirmed.� Any observation sentence is a disguised general claim, because it is not just saying �this happened at time t� it is saying �this would always happen in the relevant circumstances.�
Falsificationism inadequate on historical grounds (91)
If scientists had been true falsificationists, then all the great scientific movements would have been rejected before they got off the ground (and therefore many great discoveries that relied on applications of those theories would never have happened).� Examples (pp. 91-2): Newton�s gravitational theory, Bohr�s theory of the atom, kinetic theory.� Thus, not only are real scientists not falsificationists, it�s a damn good thing that they aren�t.
The Copernican Revolution (92)
The Copernican revolution was a very slow process, and required several different developments over the course of over a century.� Copernicus himself had no answer to apparently crippling criticisms of
Problems stemming from the logical situation (87)
Recap: the �logical point� in favour of falsificationism over inductionism is that, while no finite number of observation sentences will prove a general claim, one single observation sentence will disprove it.� BUT: 1. 1. Falsificationists accept theory-dependence (and hence, fallibility) of observation sentences, therefore the observation sentence can be rejected instead of the theory. 2. 2. Furthermore, any observation sentence will rely on theories behind the instruments involved.� That means that even if the observation sentence is confirmed according to the instruments, the theory is not necessarily falsified, because the problem could be with the theory behind the instruments, or other assumptions.� (Examples: Tycho Brahe�s refutation of Copernicus, p. 89, Lakatos�s example, p. 90.) 3. 3. Finally, the falsificationist does not (despite Popper�s claims) solve the problem of induction, because the observation sentence has to be confirmed.� Any observation sentence is a disguised general claim, because it is not just saying �this happened at time t� it is saying �this would always happen in the relevant circumstances.�
Falsificationism inadequate on historical grounds (91)
If scientists had been true falsificationists, then all the great scientific movements would have been rejected before they got off the ground (and therefore many great discoveries that relied on applications of those theories would never have happened).� Examples (pp. 91-2): Newton�s gravitational theory, Bohr�s theory of the atom, kinetic theory.� Thus, not only are real scientists not falsificationists, it�s a damn good thing that they aren�t.
The Copernican Revolution (92)
The Copernican revolution was a very slow process, and required several different developments over the course of over a century.� Copernicus himself had no answer to apparently crippling criticisms of