Talk:Falsifiability

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured article candidateFalsifiability is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted


Checking if a statement represents a natural understanding of the sources

[edit]

To explain what is meant by "... found in the logical structure alone, without having to worry about methodological considerations external to this structure", I wrote the following phrase in the RI:

..., as when physicists calculate the trajectory of a rocket by worrying only about the initial conditions they have decided to take into account

I propose to put it back, because it is an explanation in simple terms of what is meant in sources, especially Popper 1983, Introduction 1982, but yet these are my own words and it could be seen as original research. The notoriety of this 1982 text of Popper is seen in Kaye 2005, Thornton 2016 and most likely elsewhere. This is a complex issue, because, as explained by Meelh 1978, Part I, Sec. 4, which explanation he attributes to Popper himself, the logical structure can be made to cover more details so that what was originally external to it can now be described within it. In other words, the formal logical structures do not in themselves avoid the methodological falsification problems. On the contrary, they can be used to formally express these problems. Already, in 1934 in the German version of The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper 2002, (1959)), Popper explained this issue with the analogy of a jury (responsible for providing a provisional empirical basis) and the analogy of a swamp (representing this empirical basis). In Popper 1983, Introduction 1982 when he writes that Einstein's principle of equivalence is falsifiable, he is aware that there are plenty of methodological falsification issues that prevent a rigorous falsification. He meant that, despite the fact that in practice no falsification has been found, one can theoretically describe an observation that contradicts it within a logical structure accepted by convention, ... as when physicists calculate the trajectory of a rocket by worrying only about the initial conditions they have decided to take into account. Dominic Mayers (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Popper use propositional logic instead of predicate logic in his argument?

[edit]

Ever since I first read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery more than fifty years ago I have wondered why he leaned so heavily on modus tollens from propositional logic, while his argument for the falsification paradigm could have relied on reductio ad absurdum if he had used basic predicate logic. Take his example of the "black swan" whose observation falsifies the "universal law" that all swans are white. In predicate notation the argument would be: Premise 1: ∀(s) W(s) (e.g., All swans are white) implies ¬∃(s)(¬W(s)). Premise 2: B(a) implies ∃(s)(¬W(s)) (e.g., Swan 'a' is not white and is a swan implies that there exists a non-white swan). Conclusion: Therefore (by way of RAA), ¬∀(s) W(s) (e.g., The statement "all swans are white" is false). This seems far more elegant to me. The reason cannot be that Popper was not familiar with predicate logic. Does anyone know the answer? Ereunetes (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose you move the question in the reference desk, because this is a page to discuss the article. Quickly, propositional logic does not use quantifiers. Popper uses them. So he has not limited himself to propositional logic. All swans are white uses a quantifier. It is formalized by Vx S(x) => W(x) or by Vx W(x) depending of the universe used to interpret x, but Popper would not formalize such simple logic. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falsification and Open Science

[edit]

The section Falsification and Open Science added by the IP 143.210.250.119 is in principle clearly related to the subject. However, it would be much more interesting if the link was made by sources, which would most likely provide more details about the connection. Currently, it looks like a promotion of this other subject and, unless we find sources that make concrete links with Popper's philosophy, I am inclined to remove it. I don't, because if Open Science is a well known initiative (I apologize for my ignorance), the independent sources most likely exist. I will have a quick look at it. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I easily found:
Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]