Re: [Marxism] Popper

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not nonsensical according to Popper: "Testability is falsifiability; but
there are degrees of testability; some theories are more testable, more
exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks."
While Conjectures may cover more ground than falsifiability, the latter  is
Popper's baseline criterion for separating the scientific from the
non-scientific: "One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of
the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability,
or testability." He explicitly rejected a verificationist approach to
science, i.e., seeking to corroborate a hypothesis, except where "it is the
result of agenuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be
presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory."
Now, I would side with the more pluralistic view of how science progresses
espoused by Dick Levins and others, particularly with regard to the
historical natural sciences, such as palaeontology. These have advanced --
do you deny that these sciences have advanced our understanding of the
world? -- largely through corroboration. In my own field, everyone pays lip
service to Popperian falsifiability, but in practice corroboration is far
more important.

At 08:36 PM 12/31/2004, you wrote:
> Popper's point was that Darwin's theory of evolution is not testable,
> and thus, yes, not "science" per se. Evolution as a hypothesis was
> less in the firing line. The idea that falsifiability is the only single
> defining feature of "science" would of course be nonsensical, but a work
> such as Conjectures & Refutations covers vastly more ground than mere
> falsifiability.


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism