Support and trend of falsifiability

Sfetcu, Nicolae Support and trend of falsifiability., 2019 [Preprint]

[thumbnail of Nicolae_Sfetcu-Support_and_trend_of_falsifiability-C.pdf]
Preview
Text
Nicolae_Sfetcu-Support_and_trend_of_falsifiability-C.pdf - Published version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (194kB) | Preview

English abstract

Popper's supporters argued that most criticism is based on an incomprehensible interpretation of his ideas. They argue that Popper should not be interpreted as meaning that falsifiability is a sufficient condition for the demarcation of science. Some passages seem to suggest that he considers it is only a necessary condition. Other passages would suggest that for a theory to be scientific, Popper requires (besides falsifiability) other tests, and that negative test results are accepted. A demarcation criterion based on falsifiability that includes these elements will avoid the most obvious counter-arguments of a criterion based on falsifiability alone.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: falsifiability, Karl Popper, demarcation of science, tests,demarcation criterion
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BH. Information needs and information requirements analysis.
Depositing user: Nicolae Sfetcu
Date deposited: 30 Dec 2023 10:35
Last modified: 30 Dec 2023 10:38
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/45197

References

Bunge, Mario. 1982. “Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience.” Fundamenta Scientiae 3.

Cioffi, Frank. 1985. “Psychoanalysis, Pseudo-Science and Testability.” In Popper and the Human Sciences, edited by Gregory Currie and Alan Musgrave, 13–44. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Derksen, A. A. 1985. “The Alleged Unity of Popper’s Philosophy of Science: Falsifiability as Fake Cement.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 48 (3): 313–36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4319794

Feleppa, Robert. 1990. “Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation.” Philosophy of Science and the Occult 2

Grünbaum, Adolf. 1989. “Degeneration of Popper’s Theory of Demarcation.” 1989. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199989928.001.0001/acprof-9780199989928-chapter-3

Hansson, Sven Ove. 2017. “Science and Pseudo-Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2017. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science

Hempel, Carl G. 1958. “Empirical Statements and Falsifiability.” Philosophy 33 (127): 342–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3748661

Laudan, Larry. 1983. “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem.” In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, 111–27. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6

LeVine, Michael V. 2016. “Science Has Experience Fighting Fake News — and Facebook Should Take Note.” 2016.

https://mic.com/articles/161376/science-has-experience-fighting-fake-news-and-facebook-should-take-note.

Lutz, Sebastian. 2011. “On an Allegedly Essential Feature of Criteria for the Demarcation of Science.” Published Article or Volume. The Reasoner. 2011. http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol5/TheReasoner-5(8).pdf

Miller, David. 2009a. “Out of Error: Further Essays on Critical Rationalism.” In Rethinking Popper, edited by Zuzana Parusniková and R. S. Cohen, 417–423. Springer.

Miller, David. 2009b. “Some Hard Questions for Critical Rationalism.” https://philpapers.org/rec/MILSHQ

Papineau, D. 2006. “Three Scenes and a Moral.” The Philosophers’ Magazine 38.

Popper, Karl. 1934. Logica Cercetării.

Popper, Karl Raimund. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. Hutchinson.

Taliga, Miloš. 2004. “Against Watkins: From a Popperian Point of View.” Organon F: Medzinárodný Asopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 11 (2): 143–157.

Thagard, Paul R. 1978. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978: 223–234.

Watkins, John W. N. 1997. “Popperian Ideas on Progress & Rationality in Science.” The Critical Rationalist 2.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item