3 ms·

Thanks to Karl Popper, the scientific method asks that hypotheses be falsifiable. When a scientist makes a claim, she then does everything she can think of to

Thanks to Karl Popper, the scientific method asks that hypotheses be falsifiable. When a scientist makes a claim, she then does everything she can think of to disprove it. Stage II clinical trials of novel drugs are like this. The hypothesis is "this stuff cures baldness and is otherwise harmless." The experiment is an elaborate attempt to disprove the claim, with enough subjects to avoid the small "n" effect and control-subject randomization to avoid the wishful-thinking effect. Science tries to avoid claims that things are true. "Not false" gets us a long way. That avoids the Münchhausen logical trap.

jfengel 7y ago
There are problems with falsificationism, as well. You don't really reject theories based on a single falsifying data point. Sometimes you reject the data point as fake or misinterpreted. Sometimes you modify your theory and replace it, but it's unclear that that's different from the goalpost-moving of astrologers and homeopaths. Falsification is a good stake in the ground that allows scientists to work, but it's unclear if it's actually a step towards the epistemology represented by the Munchausen trilemma. Scientists have a notion that it allows them to work "toward" Truth-with-a-capital-T, a notion which both feels right and has produced high standards of living. Those may be better goals than Truth-with-a-capital-T, which may be unavailable.