Discussion Questions

1. If you want to know what science is, why don't we just look up what the word means in a dictionary? Discuss the adequacy following definition of science (from the Encyclopedia Britannica) as a demarcation criterion: Science. Any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

 

2. How does our distinction between ampliative inference and deductive inference enter, if at all, into these examples that Popper provides of science and pseudoscience (as discussed in lecture). Popperians tend to think that there is no need for ampliative inference in science at all. Why might they think that? Do the examples support that view? Discuss.

 

3. It seems that astrology does make fairly definite predictions, which are mostly just wrong. Therefore astrology is not only falsifiable, but has been falsified. However, Popper claims that truth or falsity is not the issue in demarcation. That is, a theory is not disqualified from being scientific just for being false. All that matters for Popper is its falsifiability. But, if astrology is falsifiable, then it is a genuine scientific theory by Popper's criterion. So, why is astrology not a science according to Popper? Is he right? Discuss.

 

4. A standard objection to Popper's falsificationism, and therefore to Popper's demarcation criterion as well, is that theories are not in fact falsifiable. The reason, it is claimed, is that theories are never tested in isolation. That is, they only make predictions with the help of auxiliary assumptions, and those assumptions can always be blamed for the false predictions (Quine-Duhem thesis). What does Popper have to say in reply to this objection?