From the research I have done in the last 5 minutes, it seems as though Popper believed that all good scientific theories should be subject to experiments that could prove them wrong. Ex:
“the falsificationists or fallibilists say, roughly speaking, that what cannot (at present) in principle be overthrown by criticism is (at present) unworthy of being seriously considered; while what can in principle be so overthrown and yet resists all our critical efforts to do so may quite possibly be false, but is at any rate not unworthy of being seriously considered and perhaps even of being believed” -Popper
This seems to imply that theories can be proved false.
The quote came from Conjectures and Refutations, pg 309. I agree that it doesn’t say what falenas108 claims. Plus a bit has been missed out at the end: ”—though only tentatively.” Also, on the following page, Popper says:
For us [fallibilists] … science has nothing to do with the quest for certainty or probability or reliability. We are not interested in establishing scientific theories as secure, or certain, or probable. Conscious of our own fallibility we are only interested in criticizing them and testing them, hoping to find out where we are mistaken; of learning from our mistakes; and , if we are lucky, of proceeding to better theories.
So Popper would not assert that theories can be established as definitely false.
Of course, in reality, fallibilism just means you don’t look for certainty. You can and should look for more probable theories, or as P. calls them, “better theories”.
Citation: Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York: Harper and Row. Reprinted London: Routledge, 1974.
It says theories should resist being overthrown for them to be proper theories. That implies that it is possible for a theory to be overthrown.
A theory can be fallibly overthrown, but not definitely overthrown, in Popper’s view. Quotes out of context are easy to misread when you are not familiar with the ideas, and when you make assumptions (e.g. that overthrowing must be definitive) that the author does not make.
No page number isn’t very nice. For anyone interested, it is on page 309, which is at the start of chapter 10 section 3.
If you read the context, you will find, for example, an explicit denouncement of the quest for certainty on the next page. Plus elaboration. Popper’s position in these matters is not unclear.
From the research I have done in the last 5 minutes, it seems as though Popper believed that all good scientific theories should be subject to experiments that could prove them wrong.
Ex:
This seems to imply that theories can be proved false.
Replying to accusations of unscholarly criticism of Popper with an unsourced Popper quote is very silly.
That the quote doesn’t say what you claim it does (as I read it), and you make no attempt to explain your reading of it, is also silly.
The quote came from Conjectures and Refutations, pg 309. I agree that it doesn’t say what falenas108 claims. Plus a bit has been missed out at the end: ”—though only tentatively.” Also, on the following page, Popper says:
So Popper would not assert that theories can be established as definitely false.
Of course, in reality, fallibilism just means you don’t look for certainty. You can and should look for more probable theories, or as P. calls them, “better theories”.
Hi Peter,
How did you find me here?
Citation: Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, New York: Harper and Row. Reprinted London: Routledge, 1974.
It says theories should resist being overthrown for them to be proper theories. That implies that it is possible for a theory to be overthrown.
A theory can be fallibly overthrown, but not definitely overthrown, in Popper’s view. Quotes out of context are easy to misread when you are not familiar with the ideas, and when you make assumptions (e.g. that overthrowing must be definitive) that the author does not make.
Ok, thanks for correcting me.
“A theory can be fallibly overthrown, but not definitely overthrown, in Popper’s view. ”
So maybe Jaynes was using “disprove” to mean “fallibly overthrow”.
No page number isn’t very nice. For anyone interested, it is on page 309, which is at the start of chapter 10 section 3.
If you read the context, you will find, for example, an explicit denouncement of the quest for certainty on the next page. Plus elaboration. Popper’s position in these matters is not unclear.