Karl Raimund Popper presents disprovability as a criterion for distinguishing science from non-science, and argues that metaphysical discussions can play an important role in the development of scientific theories and the distinction between pseudoscience and science. In doing so, he aims to deepen scientific inquiry and deepen our understanding of the nature of science.
Inductive reasoning is the process of drawing general conclusions from specific examples, which is limited by the fact that it draws conclusions from incomplete information. The process is justified by the principle of induction, which is based on the assumption that the same conclusions can be drawn when certain cases are repeated. However, Karl Raimund Popper opposes the principle of induction, arguing that it is not logically justifiable. In this respect, Karl Raimund Popper points out the limitations of the inductive method in scientific inquiry and argues that the validity of a scientific theory should not be assessed by proving it to be true, but by its disprovability.
Inductivists have used the principle of induction to distinguish between science and non-science, but Karl Raimund Popper believes that this distinction is not valid and proposes a new criterion. This new criterion distinguishes the metaphysical from the empirical and non-metaphysical, which he hoped would more clearly define the nature of scientific inquiry.
Karl Raimund Popper proposed disprovability as a criterion for compartmentalization. It evaluates the scientific validity of a theory based on whether it can be disproved by experiment or observation. The concept of disprovability was used to criticize many theories of the time, including Marxism, Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Alfred Adler’s psychology. These theories initially seemed to explain real-world phenomena well, but were maintained by modifying the theory or adding auxiliary hypotheses even when phenomena appeared that did not fit the theory. This led Karl Raimund Popper to criticize these theories as unscientific.
Unlike the inductivists, who sought to validate science based on the principle of induction, Karl Raimund Popper used disprovability as a distinction between science and non-science. For example, observing 100 white swans does not verify the universal statement “swans are white”. However, observing a single black swan can disprove the universal statement “all swans are white”. According to Karl Raimund Popper, scientific theories gradually move toward the truth as they withstand these attempts to disprove them. In this process, disproved theories are discarded and new ones emerge.
For Karl Raimund Popper, the criterion of disprovability is an important tool for distinguishing the metaphysical from the empirical and non-metaphysical. Unlike logical positivists, Karl Raimund Popper does not claim that the metaphysical is irrelevant, but rather recognizes that it can contribute to the development of science. Discussions of the metaphysical can play an important role in pushing the boundaries of scientific inquiry and, by extension, approaching the fundamental questions of science. Karl Raimund Popper believed that such metaphysical discussions can deepen scientific inquiry and provide new insights into scientific methodology.
Several arguments can be made against using disprovability as a criterion for categorization. One criticism is that when a theory is refuted, it becomes impossible to disprove it by introducing special assumptions or questioning the reliability of observations. In response, Karl Raimund Popper proposed several methodological rules for scientific inquiry, arguing that we should avoid protecting any statement within science from being disproved. These rules support Karl Raimund Popper’s fundamental position of distinguishing science from non-science through disprovability.
They also take into account the problems that arise in the propagation of scientific theories. Once a scientist has conceived a system of theories, it is difficult to maintain complete objectivity while communicating them to colleagues and future generations of scientists. The subjectivity of the experimenter may be involved in this process, and the results may be interpreted differently by different audiences. There is also a need to discuss how theories are derived in scientific inquiry and how metaphysical factors play a role in the process. This is essential for the clarity of scientific inquiry and to avoid pseudoscience.
In the end, scientific inquiry requires in-depth discussion and reflection that goes beyond mere experimentation and observation, and Karl Raimund Popper’s theory of disprovability can be an important starting point for such reflection. The development of scientific theories and the delineation of the boundaries between pseudoscience and science should continue to be discussed and examined, recognizing that metaphysical discussions can contribute to scientific inquiry. Such discussions will play an important role in further deepening our understanding of the nature of science and providing a clearer direction for scientific inquiry.
