The falsification view of science as championed by Popper is very narrow and
not inclusive of the scientific method which also includes testing of
hypotheses, and inductive approaches for interpreting collections of data.
Various methods are employed in my own laboratory, depending on the
situation. Not many hold falsification as being absolutely definitive of
science. This view was originally based on the idea that we really cannot
prove a theory to be true because all it takes is one instance of negative
data to prove it false. In the accumulation of empirical data supporting a
given theory, it is always possible that the next experiment would destroy it.
While intuitively understandable, this view unreasonably expects that
science will only work to disprove theories and that anomalous data will
automatically cause the theory to be discarded. But, this ignores
scientific testing of hypotheses, and requires that any anomalous data not
be artifactual. Furthermore, the history of science is replete with
examples of theories persisting in the face of anomalous evidence. This
moves us into Kuhn's view of what it takes to cause a paradigm shift.
One of my favorite criticisms of evolution is that it is not falsifiable and
therefore false.
Chew on that.
Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________