On The Margins

Saturday December 11, 2004

[ Philosophy ] Popper's Contribution to Science

Truth has only to do with beliefs, and as such, science has nothing to do with truth[1]. That conclusion, I believe, is a great contribution to science made by the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper. He and his proponents may argue otherwise, but as a scientist, I'm eager to be proven wrong. In my opinion, Popper (1902-1994) frees science by adding the most important ingredient that any human endeavor must have at its core: a good measure of modesty.

Science, according to Popper, is science to the extent it remains doggedly refutable (i.e. inherently possible to refute and prove false) not only through facts and new findings but also through its very structure and from its very basic premises.

By finally adopting dogged refutability as a requirement of science, modern analytical philosophy comes to the admission that David Hume had indeed touched upon a serious limitation of pure human reasoning, whose motion Hume discovered to be powered by inductive associations.

Refutability in science remains quite evident on a micro level. On a micro level, for example, I may postulate that 1 mililiter of water weights 1 gram at 10 degrees Centigrade but later discover the statement to be refutable and move to replace it with another. Refutability on a micro level is, in fact, admitted as science's one true virtue by those who want to make a religion out of science and scientific knowledge. However, these same proponents are unwilling to accept science's other virtue that admits the modesty of its scope and the very general nature of its refutability embedded in its very structure.

So, more significantly, the refutability criterion must also hold operative on a macro, or conceptual level. For example, as scientists, we cannot hold on to the claim that it would be false to accept anything but science as a criteria of truth and correctness. Such a claim, stated as a pure truth, would itself be unrefutable, therefore unscientific, and hence unacceptable, to start with. It would be a very false start indeed.

If a claim is put together such that new facts will be unable to challenge it, then it cannot be a scientific claim.

In conclusion, it is worth noting that science is not equipped to answer universally significant questions such as why there's anything at all when there can be nothing.

Any answer to that question cannot be refutable because there's no way to add a fact that would refute that answer.

Notes:
[1] Back in 1997, when I made this statement on a walk with some friends during a DARPA principal investigators' meeting, they appeared shocked with surprise. So, I have attempted to explain what I meant then in a bit more detail here.

2004-12-11 23:34:53.0 -- Comments [5] ; Permalink ; Trackback.