You are on page 1of 4

principle of falsifiability

Web definitions
The principle that a scientific theory must make predictions that are specific
enough to expose the theory to the possibility of disconfirmation; that is, the
theory must predict not only what will happen, but also what will not happen.
http://wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_wade_psych_1/9/2362/604691.cw/index.html



Published on Explorable.com (https://explorable.com)

Falsifiability
Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the
inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.
Science and philosophy [1] have always worked together to try to
uncover truths [2] about the world and the universe around us. Both are a
necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the
development of human society.
Scientists design experiments [3] and try to obtain results verifying or
disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in
determining what factors determine the validity [4] of scientific results.
Often, they even determine the nature of science itself and influence the
direction of viable research. As one theory is falsified, another evolves
to replace it and explain the new observations.
One of the tenets behind science is that any scientific hypothesis [5] and
resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although
falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the
majority of scientific experiments.

What is Falsifiability?
In its basic form, falsifiability is the belief that for any hypothesis to have
credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become
accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.
For example, if a scientist asks, "Does God exist?" then this can never
be science because it is a theory that cannot be disproved.
The idea is that no theory is completely correct [2], but if not falsified, it
can be accepted as truth.
For example, Newton's Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries,
because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the
figures obtained by experimentation [6] and research [7], but was always subject to
testing.
However, Einstein's theory makes falsifiable predictions that are
different from predictions made by Newton's theory, for example
concerning the precession of the orbit of Mercury, and gravitational
lensing of light. In non-extreme situations Einstein's and Newton's
theories make the same predictions, so they are both correct. But
Einstein's theory holds true in a superset of the conditions in which
Newton's theory holds, so according to the principle of Occam's
Razor [8], Einstein's theory is preferred. On the other hand, Newtonian
calculations are simpler, so Newton's theory is useful for almost any
engineering project, including some space projects. But for GPS we
need Einstein's theory.
Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition, that if a theory is
falsifiable, it is scientific [9], and if not, then it is unscientific. Whilst most
'pure' sciences do adhere to this strict definition, pseudo-
sciences [10] may fall somewhere between the two extremes.
Pseudo Science
According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially
social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for
falsification.
Anthropology and sociology, for example, often use case studies [11] to
observe people in their natural environment without
actually testing [12]any specific hypotheses or theories.
Whilst such studies and ideas are not falsifiable, most would agree that
they are scientific because they significantly advance human
knowledge.
Even 'pure' or 'true' science must make compromises and assumptions
on occasion. The testing of any theory must take into account the
equipment and resources available.
Falsifiability [13] is not a simple black and white matter because a theory,
which is difficult to falsify at the time, may be falsified in the future.
The Raven Paradox [14] shows the inherent danger of relying on
falsifiability, because very few scientific experiments can measure all of
the data, and rely upon generalization [15].
Conclusion
For many of the pure sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for
generating theories that are testable and realistic.
If a falsifiable theory is tested and the results are significant [16], then it
can become accepted as a scientific truth.
The advantage of Popper's idea is that such truths can be falsified when
more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted
theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly
challenged and adapted.
The major disadvantage of falsifiability is that it is very strict in its
definitions and does not take into account that many sciences are
observational [17] and descriptive [18].
Pseudo sciences [10] undertake research without an initial theory or
hypothesis. On the other hand, theories such as 'Intelligent Design'
would be classed as scientific, because they have a falsifiable
hypothesis, however weak.

Source URL: https://explorable.com/falsifiability
Links:
[1] https://explorable.com/philosophy-of-science, [2] https://explorable.com/truth-
and-theory, [3] https://explorable.com/design-of-experiment, [4]
https://explorable.com/types-of-validity, [5] https://explorable.com/research-
hypothesis, [6] https://explorable.com/conducting-an-experiment, [7]
https://explorable.com/what-is-research, [8] http://explorable.com/occams-razor,
[9] https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method, [10]
https://explorable.com/pseudoscience, [11] https://explorable.com/case-study-
research-design, [12] https://explorable.com/hypothesis-testing, [13]
http://www.onbelief.org/Articles/Philosophy_Falsification.htm, [14]
https://explorable.com/raven-paradox, [15] https://explorable.com/what-is-
generalization, [16] https://explorable.com/statistically-significant-results, [17]
https://explorable.com/observational-study, [18]
https://explorable.com/descriptive-research-design, [19]
https://explorable.com/users/martyn, [20] https://explorable.com/falsifiability, [21]
https://explorable.com/ideas, [22] https://explorable.com/ideas/why-correlation-is-
not-causation, [23] https://explorable.com/ideas/ten-years-later, [24]
https://explorable.com/ideas/where-is-this-video, [25]
https://explorable.com/ideas/peter-medawar-most-true-science-quote-ever

You might also like