Karl Popper (1902-1994)
Demarcation between science and non-science
Zoltán Dienes, Philosophy of psychology
What is science?
What is the difference between science and pseudo-science?
What is the difference between good science and bad science?
On what grounds should some papers submitted to scientific
journals be rejected or accepted?
Are Christian Science, Creation Science, Scientology, astrology
sciences? If not, why not and why does it matter?
Is psychology a science? Good science or bad science?
How does knowledge grow?
What is science?
“Systematic and formulated knowledge” based on
empirical observation.
-So astrology is a science?
-Why has there been such an explosive growth in knowledge over
the last few hundred years?
-More generally, what is it that facilitates the growth of
knowledge?
Need a better demarcation criterion that answers these questions.
How can we arrive at knowledge of general rules from
empirical observation?
Deduction:
Going from certain truths to further certain truths.
All swans are white
Sam is a swan
____________________
Sam is white
Induction:
Going from particular observations to universal rules.
Sam the swan is white;
Georgina the swan is white;
Fred the swan is white;
…
Emma the swan is white
_____________________
All swans are white (?)
Inductivists believe that science proceeds by induction.
Science is objective because it is based on actual observations
rather than just speculation.
Science goes from particular observation statements inductively
to general rules.
David Hume (1711-1776): But how is this possible? How can
we ever justify going from particular observations to
universal rules?
(We are very confident that the sun will continue to rise each
morning – but one morning it WILL NOT!)
The problem of induction
If science is inductive reasoning, and if it is always
questionable to go from particulars to universals, how is
science possible?
Problem of induction solved: Induction does not exist.
Science consists of freely, creatively inventing theories then
testing them. Theories are never shown to be true, but can be
falsified. Testing is deductive: Accepting certain singular
statements means by deduction that the theory is false.
Science can only work in this way if a theory is
falsifiable: the theory says certain things cannot
happen.
Problem of induction solved: Induction does not exist.
Science consists of freely, creatively inventing theories then
testing them. Theories are never shown to be true, but can be
falsified. Testing is deductive: Accepting certain singular
statements means by deduction that the theory is false.
Science can only work in this way if a theory is
falsifiable: the theory says certain things cannot
happen.
Science consists in proposing falsifiable theories then
rigorously attempting to falsify them: It is only when theories
are falsified that we get feedback from Nature and a chance to
improve our knowledge.
Theories that survive rigorous attempts at falsification are
NOT proved; they are “corroborated” but can only be held
tentatively.
Accept Hume:
Cannot go from singular statements (apply to a specific event or
individual) to universals (a general assertion to be applied to an
unlimited number of individuals)
There is no method of showing a theory is true!
BUT one can go from singular statements to concluding a universal
statement is false!
Peter the Swan is black
_____________________
Not all swans are white
So “All swans are white” cannot be verified by any number of
singular statements BUT it can be falsified
Popper was impressed by two opposing types of experiences in
1919: On the one hand with Marxism and psychoanalysis; on
the other hand, with Einstein.
“Admirers of Marx, Freud and Adler were impressed by the ability
of the theories to explain everything that happened within their
domain.
They saw confirming instances everywhere; whatever happened
always confirmed it. Its truth appeared manifest; people who did not
see the truth refused to because of their class interest or because of
their repressions which were crying out for treatment.
A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every
page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history“ (1963, p. 45)
Popper briefly worked for Alfred Adler (a student of Freud’s).
“Once in 1919 I reported to [Adler] a case which did not seem
particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing
in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not
even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how could he be
so sure. ‘Because of my thousand-fold experience’ he replied;
whereupon I could not help saying, ‘And with this new case, I
suppose, your experience has become one thousand-and-one-fold’”.
What do these confirmations mean if every conceivable case
could be interpreted in the light of Adler’s (or Freud’s) theory?
How would Adler (Freud, Marx) ever get any indication that he
was wrong?
Contrast
• a man who pushes a child into water to drown it
• a man who sacrifices his life attempting to save the child.
According to Freud:
• the first man suffered from repression (say of some component of
the Oedipus complex)
• the second had achieved sublimation.
According to Adler:
• the first man suffered from feelings of inferiority (producing the
need to prove himself that he dared to commit such a crime)
• and so did the second man (whose need was to prove himself that
he dared to rescue the child).
If a patient accepts the interpretation: It was the right
one
If a patient rejects the interpretation, particularly with
some vigour: It hit pretty close to home.
What would give you the slightest inkling that you,
the analyst, were wrong?
If we cannot learn from our mistakes, how can we
improve our theories?
In 1919 Popper went to a lecture by Einstein which impressed him
greatly. Einstein said if in a particular set-up light were not
observably bent, his general theory of relativity would be untenable.
(The prediction was tested in May 1919 by Eddington and the
effect was found.)
If someone proposes a scientific theory they should
answer, as Einstein did: “Under what conditions
would I admit that my theory is untenable?”
In 1919 Popper went to a lecture by Einstein which impressed him
greatly. Einstein said if in a particular set-up light were not
observably bent, his general theory of relativity would be untenable.
(The prediction was tested in May 1919 by Eddington and the
effect was found.)
If someone proposes a scientific theory they should
answer, as Einstein did: “Under what conditions
would I admit that my theory is untenable?”
Lakatos:
“I used to put this question to Marxists and Freudians: ‘Tell me
what specific social and historical events would have to occur in
order for you to give up your Marxism?’. I remember this was
accompanied by either stunned silence or confusion. But I was very
pleased with the effect.” (1999, p. 26)
Popper’s ideas were often endorsed by great scientists.
E.g. Feynman:
“The scientist does not try to avoid showing that the rules are wrong;
there is progress and excitement in the exact opposite. He tries to
prove himself wrong as quickly as possible. . .
In science we are not interested in where an idea comes from. There
is no authority that decides what is a good idea. … there is no interest
in the background of the author of an idea or his motive in
expounding it. You listen and if it sounds like a thing worth trying
you get excited…”
Feynman emphasized the fallibility of all scientific knowledge
and the importance of doubt not certainty: “If we did not doubt
we would not get any new ideas”.
(1998/1963)
