“I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that’s a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn’t insane. We are only doing philosophy.’”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
Just a few rough thoughts—
Falsificationism replaces verificationism, in part because of the “black swan” problem (which Popper recognized). Therefore, empirical observations—no matter how many in agreement—are not taken to verify the hypothesis in question (since it would only take one new observation to refute/defeat/falsify it) but as having failed to falsify it to a sufficient degree of probability. Of course this means that scientific inquiry (like any inductive/abductive logic)* cannot provide “certain proof”, but always remains somewhat open to further inquiry, no matter how vanishingly small the probability of error becomes. This is why a theory must rest on a body of repeated observation and testing—repeated challenging of the theory. (And this is also why a scientific theory is not “just a theory”, like “just my opinion” or “just a hypothesis”.)
Meanwhile, however, we have enough confidence to send space probes to far reaches of the solar system, to microwave our sandwiches, to use GPS to navigate our roads trips, to take medications when ill—etc., etc., etc.. [For example, my wife had a heart attack last year. She is permanently on a diet tested by medical science—not philosophy or religion. And yet, human diets are still being tested; there is no certainty.]
People sometimes use the word verify, in part, I think because the language of falsification (or disconfirmation) is just a bit more cumbersome. Nevertheless, I recall my first econometrics professor reminding us almost daily that we never prove (verify) the null hypothesis, but only fail to disprove (fail to verify/confirm) it to an acceptable level of confidence (as I recall—so many years since I did any of that!—0.90 was considered fairly low, though minimally acceptable, all things considered). And if anyone failed to heed his words—fail (the project, not the course: if remediation was made—the project re-submitted with correction— and the mistake not repeated).
So, if a hypothesis is in principle falsifiable—even if, perhaps, no plausible test has yet been designed—it is in the realm of valid empirical (scientific) inquiry. If not, then not. (Assuming, obviously, that the hypothesis is formulated in a coherent way.)* I cannot imagine in what way evolution would not be falsifiable.
____________________________________________________________
* I think this is the logical conundrum: deductive logic, of itself, tests only coherency (validity), not empirical truth—one can be certain of the result (e.g., if p, then q:p:therefore q) only by reference to empirical reality. Inductive/abductive logic draw conclusions from observations, but can never be sealed with certainty.
_____________________________________________________________
“I act with complete certainty. But this certainty is my own.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
“What stands fast does so, not because it is intrinsically obvious or convincing; it is rather held fast by what lies around it.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
“Where two principles really do meet which cannot be reconciled with one another, then each man declares the other a fool and a heretic”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty
Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification"
25 Jun '15 11:33
YouTube
Back to Top