← Back to the axis

Relation to truth· Truth, language and science

Refutation

Axis: Scientific methodHow does science go about justifying its claims?

A theory is never proven, only refuted. A hypothesis is scientific if it exposes itself to an experiment that could disprove it; as long as it withstands them, it is corroborated, never established once and for all.

Foundations and implications
↑ What grounds itRefutation — Scientific method=RefutationScientific method
Descriptive
Scientific realism — Status of knowledge=Scientific realismStatus of knowledge
Descriptive
Correspondence — Nature of truth=CorrespondenceNature of truth
Descriptive
A leaf — an application that grounds nothing further here.

What grounds it

Status of knowledge

If science aims at a truth it never attains with certainty, then it advances not by proving its theories but by exposing them to what could refute them. Scientific realism supports falsificationism: Popper holds a theory to be scientific precisely insofar as it takes the risk of being disproved.

What it implies

A leaf — an application that grounds nothing further here.

Practices
By what method am I holding this belief?RuleAttested · Peirce

Ask not whether your belief is true, but by which method you hold it.

In "The Fixation of Belief", distinguishes four ways of settling doubt: tenacity (I cling to what I already believe), authority (I believe it because I was told to), the a priori method (I believe it because it seems agreeable to reason, to my taste), and the method of science (I believe it because it answers to public facts that could correct it). This rule does not hand you instant certainty: it makes you notice how you actually hold a belief, and invites you to move it toward the last method, the only one that answers to communal checking and stays open to revision.

Unlock the practices

The step-by-step routine is part of Premium access: a modest contribution that supports and encourages the development of Philoscopia. Everything encyclopedic stays free and open source — this only opens the actionable practices.

Discover Premium access

Already unlocked on another device? Sign in to restore it.

Problems
  • Descriptive Thought experiment
    The black swan

    No number of white swans proves that all are white, but a single black swan is enough to belie it: how, then, does one establish a general law, by piling up cases, by hunting the counter-example, or by weighing the probabilities?

    a universal law
  • Descriptive
    What can evidence do?

    No accumulation of evidence proves a universal law; a single counter-example, on the other hand, seems enough to refute it: evidence would then count only by its power to belie, never to establish. But does it even truly refute? When a result contradicts a theory, it is never that theory alone that is at stake, but a whole bundle of auxiliary hypotheses, and one can always sacrifice one of them to save it. Prove, refute, or only make more or less probable: what, exactly, can evidence do?

    a piece of evidence, a test
  • Descriptive
    Is there a method at all?

    What if there were no universal rule of sound scientific reasoning? Feyerabend argues that the great discoveries often broke the canons of method, and that in science "anything goes": the logic reconstructed after the fact is not what actually advances knowledge.

    the methodological rule itself