Demarcation of science: Falsificationism

A single statement cannot prove anything right but it can prove something general wrong

The truth of the premises follow the truth of the conclusion

Particular statements

Hypotheses or theories

Even though you make many observations you cannot be sure that it is right e.g. all ravens are black

The appearance of being true or real

Single observation to discarding something general If T then O, not-O is true ergo not-T is true

You go from a general case and if that general case is fulfilled the single case is fulfilled as well If T then O, T is true ergo O is true

The problem of induction questions our reasons for believing that the future will resemble the past

T_1→O_1 E.g. If it’s raining, the streets are wet

¬O

Statements which are true (or false) by the way they relate to the world

• Strictly universal • Theories or natural laws • All statements i.e. universal assertion about an unlimited number of individuals • Numerically universal • Statements that refer only to a finite class of specific elements within a finite individual (or particular) spatio-temporal region

“Weaker” statements such as ‘there are black ravens’. Cannot be falsified

A statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. Should be sufficient and necessary for the deduction of all statements belonging to the theory which is to be axiomatized

“if —, then …”

The problem of finding a criterion which would enable us to distinguish between the empirical sciences on the one hand, and mathematics and logic as well as ‘metaphysical’ systems on the other, I call the problem of demarcation

It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience

• State a theory, T • Operationalise those theories, i.e. make predictions, T –> O • Do your best to falsify T, i.e. try as hard as you can to find So we can’t confirm T, but we can corroborate T by trying our best to falsify it T→O