This blog post explores whether Karl Raimund Popper’s theory of falsifiability can serve as a valid criterion for distinguishing science from non-science.
Inductive reasoning is the process of deriving general conclusions from specific instances. This process has limitations because it draws conclusions from incomplete information. Its justification is based on the principle of induction, which assumes that repeating specific instances will yield the same conclusion. However, Karl Raimund Popper argues that the logical justification of this principle of induction is impossible and opposes it. In this regard, Karl Raimund Popper points out the limitations of the inductive method in scientific inquiry, arguing that scientific theories should not be evaluated by proving their truth but rather by their falsifiability.
Inductivists attempted to distinguish science from non-science using the principle of induction, but Karl Raimund Popper deemed this distinction invalid and proposed a new criterion for demarcation. This new criterion distinguishes between the metaphysical and the empirical and non-metaphysical, aiming to define the essence of scientific inquiry more clearly.
Karl Raimund Popper proposes falsifiability as the criterion for demarcation. This falsifiability evaluates a theory’s scientific validity based on whether it can be disproved by experiments or observations. The concept of falsifiability was used to critique several theories of the time, such as Marxism, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Alfred Adler’s psychology. These theories initially appeared to explain actual phenomena well, but when phenomena inconsistent with the theory arose, they were maintained by modifying the theory or adding auxiliary hypotheses. Karl Raimund Popper judged these theories to be unscientific.
Unlike inductivists who sought to validate science based on the principle of induction, Karl Raimund Popper uses falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing science from non-science. For example, observing 100 white swans cannot validate the universal statement “All swans are white.” However, observing a single black swan falsifies the universal statement “All swans are white.” According to Karl Raimund Popper, scientific theories gradually advance toward truth by withstanding such attempts at falsification. In this process, falsified theories are discarded, and new theories emerge.
For Karl Raimund Popper, falsifiability—the criterion for demarcation—serves as a crucial tool for distinguishing the metaphysical from the empirical and non-metaphysical. Unlike logical positivists, Karl Raimund Popper does not claim that the metaphysical is meaningless; rather, he acknowledges it can contribute to the advancement of science. Discussions concerning metaphysical aspects can play a vital role in expanding the boundaries of scientific inquiry and, furthermore, in approaching fundamental questions of science. Karl Raimund Popper believed that such metaphysical discussions could deepen scientific inquiry and, moreover, provide new insights into scientific methodology.
Several counterarguments can be raised against using falsifiability as the criterion for demarcation. One criticism is that when counterexamples to a theoretical system emerge, they can be rendered unfalsifiable by introducing ad hoc assumptions or questioning the reliability of observations. In response, Karl Raimund Popper proposed several methodological rules for scientific inquiry, arguing that one must avoid protecting any statement within science from being falsified. These rules support Karl Raimund Popper’s fundamental position of distinguishing science from non-science through falsifiability.
Furthermore, issues arising during the dissemination of scientific theories must also be considered. When a scientist conceives a theoretical framework, maintaining complete objectivity during its transmission to peers or future scientists is difficult. The experimenter’s subjectivity can intervene in this process, and interpretations may vary depending on the recipients. Furthermore, discussion is needed on how theories are derived in scientific inquiry and how metaphysical elements operate within that process. This is essential for ensuring scientific inquiry is conducted more clearly and for avoiding pseudoscience.
Ultimately, scientific inquiry requires deep discussion and reflection beyond mere experimentation and observation. Karl Raimund Popper’s theory of falsifiability can serve as a crucial starting point for such reflection. In distinguishing the boundaries between the development of scientific theories and pseudoscience, we must acknowledge that metaphysical discussions can contribute to scientific inquiry. Continuous discussion and review on this matter should be pursued. Such discussions will play a vital role in deepening our understanding of the essence of science and in more clearly defining the direction of scientific inquiry.
