4 ms·
That's why an important criteria in research is falsification and not just induction. Look at Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Karl_Popp
by inglor 12y ago
That's why an important criteria in research is falsification and not just induction. Look at Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Karl_Popper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#Karl_Poppe...
> ccording to Popper, the problem of induction as usually conceived is asking the wrong question: it is asking how to justify theories given they cannot be justified by induction. Popper argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs for an authoritarian answer". Instead, Popper said, what should be done is to look to find and correct errors.[27] Popper regarded theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true.
- crimsonalucard 12y agoNot only is it "important," in science, falsification is the ONLY method available, there is absolutely no other way. Proving any theory in reality is fundamentally impossible. In fact, the concept of "proof" only exists in mathematics and logic. Karl Popper himself wrote: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," This flies in the face of our intuition and is very hard for people (even some scientists) to understand. The reason this occurs is due to an asymmetry between evidence needed to prove something and evidence needed to disprove something. Evidence cannot prove a theory correct because other evidence, yet to be discovered, may exist that is inconsistent with the theory. However to falsify a theory, one only needs a single inconsistent fact.