Popper’s falsificationist methodology holds that scientific theories are characterized by entailing predictions that future observations might reveal to be false. When theories are falsified by such observations, scientists can respond by revising the theory, or by rejecting the theory in favor of a rival or by maintaining the theory as is and changing an auxiliary hypothesis. In either case, however, this process must aim at the production of new, falsifiable predictions, while Popper recognizes that scientists can and do hold onto theories in the face of failed predictions when there are no predictively superior rivals to turn to. He holds that scientific practice is characterized by its continual effort to test theories against experience and make revisions based on the outcomes of these tests.
This is a great approach for newbies, and a good reminder for the practised. LLMs could be a powerful tool for assisting science, but the consumer models are so sycophantic, they are often misleading. We really could do with a science-first LLM...
Although Popper’s views are unfashionable these days (at least as of my last philosophy of science class years ago), my experience working with scientists in several fields has been that in practice, they generally take a pretty Popperian approach.
But in any case, yeah, it did seem like a good frame to use in a painfully brief gloss of scientific practice.
Your approach aligns closely with a Popperian view of science as falsification:
This is a great approach for newbies, and a good reminder for the practised. LLMs could be a powerful tool for assisting science, but the consumer models are so sycophantic, they are often misleading. We really could do with a science-first LLM...
Although Popper’s views are unfashionable these days (at least as of my last philosophy of science class years ago), my experience working with scientists in several fields has been that in practice, they generally take a pretty Popperian approach.
But in any case, yeah, it did seem like a good frame to use in a painfully brief gloss of scientific practice.