FALSIFICATION VS VERIFICATION OR WHY POPPER BEAT AYER?
The difference between verification and falsification is that verification looks merely for the evidence stated in the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is 'all swans are white,' and the scientist looks out and observes only white swans then he takes this evidence as verifying the hypothesis. Falsification however is the event where the hypothesis is refuted by evidence of a black swan. Now, the scientists know that the hypothesis is false. In effect, Popper is saying that we cannot know by induction whether an hypothesis is truth, but we can know if it false and therefore we should set up falsification experiments or sincerity and severity tests.
The definition of corroboration is messy: an observation statement supports an hypothesis when it follows from, agrees with, or is an instance of the hyp. However, for Popper this is not a severe test which attempts to refute the hypothesis and searches for counter instances. Also, Popper stated that the term, 'degree of confirmation or corroboration' seems to reduce induction to probability which he thought was wrong because 'a degree of' does not lead to practical results.
Where Carnap posited a degree of confirmation, Popper claimed that degree of corroboration meant in terms of 'logical content' and not 'amount of evidence.' Also, he claimed that corroboration of an hyp. could increase if rival theories were falsified or refuted and where evidence emerged which was completely unexpected given the original conditions and background knowledge of the hyp. and test statements. Popper was trying to differentiate inductive logic from probability logic.
The difference between verification and falsification is that verification looks merely for the evidence stated in the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is 'all swans are white,' and the scientist looks out and observes only white swans then he takes this evidence as verifying the hypothesis. Falsification however is the event where the hypothesis is refuted by evidence of a black swan. Now, the scientists know that the hypothesis is false. In effect, Popper is saying that we cannot know by induction whether an hypothesis is truth, but we can know if it false and therefore we should set up falsification experiments or sincerity and severity tests.
The definition of corroboration is messy: an observation statement supports an hypothesis when it follows from, agrees with, or is an instance of the hyp. However, for Popper this is not a severe test which attempts to refute the hypothesis and searches for counter instances. Also, Popper stated that the term, 'degree of confirmation or corroboration' seems to reduce induction to probability which he thought was wrong because 'a degree of' does not lead to practical results.
Where Carnap posited a degree of confirmation, Popper claimed that degree of corroboration meant in terms of 'logical content' and not 'amount of evidence.' Also, he claimed that corroboration of an hyp. could increase if rival theories were falsified or refuted and where evidence emerged which was completely unexpected given the original conditions and background knowledge of the hyp. and test statements. Popper was trying to differentiate inductive logic from probability logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment