This essay examines the argument of Laudan’s Pessimistic Meta Induction (PMI.) I argue that the pessimistic Meta induction is fallacious, easily proven invalid by realist logic, and inapplicable to modern science. The Pessimistic Meta Induction is one of the most notable arguments against scientific realism. The theory centers around the historical pattern of scientific theories being abolished and replaced, essentially deeming the old theories false. Because of this the Pessimistic Meta Induction argues that current scientific theories will eventually be deemed false as well. Laudan specifically argues that history shows a plethora of empirically verified theories that were later rejected, and because the unobservable terms within the larger theories are intertwined, they can’t be viewed at true or even approximately true (Zlatan.) Laudan’s argument can be placed in standard form like so:
(1) Assume that the success of a theory is a reliable test for its truth.
(2) Most current
Confirmation evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify a theory.
6. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing some ad hoc auxiliary assumption, or re-interpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. However, such a method either destroys or lowers its scientific status.”
These criteria make it hard for pseudosciences such as astrology or dowsing to be considered science. There has also been large increases in the accuracy and use of technology is ensuring that there is more empirical evidence and proof that theories are being based on.
Some may argue against the corrected ratio of falsified to accepted theories, but unless every theory in the history of science was to be measured that argument would be futile, and the above point would still
1. Video “Here Be Dragons” by Brian Dunning (4/15/14) is a fresh and critical overlook on the huge variety of so called “dragons” which exist in abundance even in our civilized society. This video promotes critical thinking and demonstrates the “red flags” that one has to look out for in order to detect pseudosciences. A pseudoscience is an idea that claims to be real but is not backed by any real science or evidence. For instance, hair analysis, feng shui, psychokinesis, homeopathy, numerology, aura analysis, the list could go on forever. The warning signs for such “sciences” are - appeal to authority, ancient wisdom, confirmation bias, confuse correlation with causation, red herring, proof by verbosity, mystical energy, suppression by authority, all natural and ideological support. The one “red flag” I have always been skeptical about and this video confirmed it for me is “appeal to authority”. It is hard for me to understand how people actually trust advertisements that are simply screaming “we are specialists, look at our white lab coats and and all the certificates and the celebrities that support our product”. It is simply pathetic. As Brian says - “Good science presents good data, it does not aim to impress”. However, the one “red flag” that I have to be careful about myself is confusing correlation with causation. It is the natural human tendency to assume that, if two events or phenomena consistently occur at about the same time, then one is the cause of the other. Our weakness for this tactic is often exploited by scammers and bogus scientists when they want to persuade us that a relationship exists between two variables without providing supporting evidence. In order to secure ourselves from falling for all the nonsense...
The unificationist account of explanation and the notion of ad hoc-ness as posited by Popper are very similar concepts, but there is a nuance between the two that is worth explaining. Although both notions seem to show why we choose certain explanatory theories over others, they differ in that the model of unification shows us what type of theory we should accept, while Popper’s notion of ad hoc-ness shows us what type of theory to reject. Together, these concepts help us better understand the explanatory model of unification which leads us to a better understanding of why we are inclined to accept certain scientific theories over others. In this paper, I will attempt to show that falsifying theories based on Popper’s ad hoc-ness criteria strengthens the idea of unification by giving people a more specific way of eliminating competing scientific theories in search of the most unified one. First, I will briefly describe the unificationist account of explanation, then I will explain the idea of ad hoc-ness as laid out by Popper, and finally I will show how ad hoc-ness can be used to strengthen the account of unification by means of increasing its objectivity and by providing simpler explanations.
Essentially this theory states that a theory, once the hypothesis has been made, should go through rounds where the scientist must try to prove the hypothesis false, or null. If the scientist is unable to do so, then the theory must be true.
Caplan 's argument is that,if these theory is allowed perhaps the scientists would not be the
Pseudo sciences resting on the priori method carefully stated their information and follow logical rules to arrive at acceptable conclusions. In this approach, the conclusions are derived by using logic through some a set of facts and/or declarations. The a priori method is more intellectual and respected approach compared with other methods such as tenacity and authority. Furthermore, is t has shown to be quite strong in the hands of that mathematicians and philosophers. Nevertheless, accurate scientific conclusions depend on both the reasoning and the exactness of the premises. This is where it comes the use of the scientific method; science meets reasoning and empiricism, using logical reasoning, but by means of a careful methodology, (Graziano & Raulin, 2010; Rosnow & Rosenthal,
When analysing science and the concepts and arguments relating to scientific theory, it is important to separate an argument that has its foundations in science and that which sounds scientific but really should be labelled as pseudo-science. The distinction between the two was first analysed by Karl Popper, who viewed scientific theory in terms of testability and falsifiability. By reviewing and analysing arguments for the intelligent design (ID) theory and Darwinism we can deduce whether or not these theories have solid arguments or if they fall under the category of unfalsifiable. Further analysis of the two theories arguments can help us see if they commit any fallacies and have rational arguments.
In addition to logical consistency, testability is an important piece when evaluating a theory. According to Akers & Sellers (2013), “a theory must be testable by objective, repeatable evidence” (p.5); thus, if the theory is not testable then it has no scientific value. There are several reasons why a theory might not be testable; such as its concepts may not be observable or reportable events and tautology. Tautology refers to a statement or hypothesis that is tr...
Although these two methods of reasoning conduct different approaches in the scientific method, both finalise in the deve...
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
...g that could not be scientifically studied was that of the supernatural world and the effects it brings with it whether real or not. The issue with this argument is that using this basically tells the world that there are no completely accurate scientific experiments since it is impossible to have a controlled experiment without a controlled supernatural variable even though it is a necessary portion of science.
According to Popper, it is important because every real test of a theory should be an attempt to falsify it, or prove it to be incorrect, because if it is not proven wrong, it becomes not scientific. A good theory is one that can indeed be disproven, or “testability is falsifiability.”
...fs, so too are the scientists. The same logistics used by an evolutionary theory, can also easily turned against it. If something preceded something else in all cases, then what exactly was the first cause? That paradoxical conflict is one that we would have the most to gain in resolving, but in the meantime leaves room for the coexistence of metaphysics and science.
“Arguments Concerning Scientific Realism” is Bas van Fraassen’s attack on the positive construction of science. He starts by defining scientific realism as the goal of science to provide a “literally true story of what the world is like;” and the “acceptance of a scientific theory” necessitates the “belief that it is true”. This definition contains two important attributes. The first attribute describes scientific realism as practical. The aim of science is to reach an exact truth of the world. The second attribute is that scientific realism is epistemic. To accept a theory one must believe that it is true. Van Fraassen acknowledges that a “literally true account” divides anti-realists into two camps. The first camp holds the belief that science’s aim is to give proper descriptions of what the world is like. On the other hand, the second camp believes that a proper description of the world must be given, but acceptance of corresponding theories as true is not necessary.
Beginning with the scientific revolution in the fifteen hundreds, the Western world has become accustomed to accepting knowledge that is backed by the scientific method, a method that has been standardized worldwide for the most accurate results. This method allows people to believe that the results achieved from an experiment conducted using the scientific method have been properly and rigorously tested and must therefore be the closest to truth. This method also allows for replication of any experiment with the same results, which further solidifies the credibility and standing of natural science in the world. Another aspect that allows for the reliability on the natural sciences is the current paradigm boxes, which skew the truth to remove anomalies. This affects the outcome of experiments as the hypotheses will be molded to create results that fit the paradigm box.
The major strength of science is that it has uncertainty and skepticism. Science never claims to be hundred percent accurate. There is always some degree of ambiguity and probability in science. The Heisenberg’s uncertainty in quantum mechanics is a good example of this. According to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty, we can never be sure of the position of the quantum particles. There is always a degree of fuzziness in nature and a fundamental limit to what we can understand about these particles and their behavior. We can only calculate the probability of the nature of the particle and ho...