Popper and His Falsifiability Criterion
Information
Popper, Sir Karl was born July 28, 1902, Vienna, Austria and died Sept. 17, 1994, Croydon, Greater London, England. he was a philosopher of natural and social science who subscribed to antideterminist metaphysics, believing that knowledge evolves from experience of the mind.
Although his first book, Logik der Forschung (1934; The Logic of Scientific Discovery), was published by the Vienna Circle of logical positivists, Popper rejected their inductive empiricism and developmental historic ism. After studying mathematics, physics, and psychology at the University of Vienna, he taught philosophy at Canterbury University College, New Zealand (1937–45). In 1945 he became a reader in logic at the London School of Economics, and he served there as professor of logic and scientific method from 1949 until his retirement in 1969.
Popper's principal contribution to the philosophy of science rests on his rejection of the inductive method in the empirical sciences. According to this traditional view, a scientific hypothesis may be tested and verified by obtaining the repeated outcome of substantiating observations. As the Scottish empiricist David Hume had shown, however, only an infinite number of such confirming results could prove the theory correct. Popper argued instead that hypotheses are deductively validated by what he called the "falsifiability criterion." Under this method, a scientist seeks to discover an observed exception to his postulated rule. The absence of contradictory evidence thereby becomes corroboration of his theory. According to Popper, such pseudosciences as astrology, metaphysics, Marxist history, and Freudian psychoanalysis are not empirical sciences, because of their failure to adhere to the principle of falsifiability.
Popper's later works include The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), The Poverty of Historic ism (1957), and Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, 3 vol. (1981–82). He was knighted in 1965.
4 Comments:
At 3:47 AM, Anonymous said…
"So, my theory of God is falsified by empirical data on physical particles."
You still don't get it, Mr. Shollenberger. If your theory of God is really falsified by those empirical data, the only conclusion can be that your theory is no longer valid. As other readers have already told you, to falsify means to prove wrong.
I guess what you mean to say is this: "My theory of God is FALSIFIABLE by empirical data on physical particles". Do you see the difference? And do you understand why this difference is an essential one?
It is mistakes like these (which are all over the place in your writings and are due to an apparent inability on your part to handle abstract terms) and your stubborn unwillingness to recognize them that make some of your readers call you an amateur.
By the way, why do you take offence at being called that? The definition of 'amateur' is: a person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession. Don't you fit that definition perfectly?
Kind regards,
Jonathan Baldrick
At 9:16 AM, Anonymous said…
Hi George,
I really like your blog...I've added you to my favourites. I'll be visiting again...
Take care,
Basem
At 10:41 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Jonathan Baldrick,
Something is wrong. If I falsify my theory of God, you say that my theory is false. What then is new about Popper's criterion? The game of true v. false is not a new idea.
Popper's criterion has a new meaning if a theory has the potential to become false. His criterion causes man to seek empirical data. As an antideterminist, Popper seems to believe is a futurist and believes that the world has no end requires science to continually focus on future experience. Experience and interest in the futurism is taught by Paul in the Bible at Rom. 1:20.
A person is not stubborn if one disagrees with others. Your misuse of symbols in the ugly English language is showing. The same problem is true for the symbol amatuer.
You seem to be a follower of the awful Englisn language dictionaries. I am not a follower of them.
George
At 10:44 AM, George Shollenberger said…
response to Basem,
Expect difference because I am unifying the limping fields of theology and science.
George
Post a Comment
<< Home