From: http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/~idmon/zphil1.htm
In epistemology we want to know why we think our beleifs about the world are true. In the work of Popper we are looking specifically about the theories upon which science is based. The case of scientific theories presents us with particular problems. These are all to do with the lack of any direct or definite proof or disproof of the truth of scientific theories, thus how do we choose between conflicting theories? With the absence of a decision process is science a rational process as we have been led to beleive, or are we faced with a kind of science fetishism which cloaks itself in reason but has no real validity.That says it better than I did. False negatives?
Science aims at theories which explain natural phenomena. More precisely, science is looking for theories which tell us about the causation of phenomena and they aim at generality, explaining a particular effect by showing it to be caused by some general regularity of nature. It is this search for generality of scientific theories that precludes our establishing their definite proof. We can examine only a very small proportion of all the cases covered by a general theory which is intended to apply over all space and time as part of its claim. So, because of their generality we cannot verify scientific theories or even be sure they are probable with anything like mathematical certainty. Therefore how can we trust them?
It is difficult to trust what cannot be proved and here Karl Popper overturns the argument by stating that proof is not necesarry but what is important is the concept of falsifiability <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm>. Precisely because of the universality of a general scientific theory which states that all phenomena of a certain class have such and such characteristics, only one counter-example is needed to show that the theory is false. Science should attempt to submit theories to the most stringent testing possible and make predictions which have not yet been tested. Poppers favourite example is Einsteins special theory of relativity which in 1905 predicted that light was bent by heavenly bodies, this was not tested until the eclipse of the sun in 1919. Thus theories which can easily be tested will be weeded out quickly if false and those that survive can be retained, but even these can only be kept on a provisional basis. The problem of induction <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm> prevents the passing of the tests proving the correctness of the theory.
Therfore science is rational in Poppers view because though complete proof is impossible it follows a critical approach testing theories against the natural world and making predictions for as yet undiscoverd effects.
This thesis was first elucidated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery <http://www.users.totalise.co.uk/%7Eidmon/zlogcona.htm>
*****Jack, *
** *So, what Karl Popper was saying was that there's no such thing as a "false negative", right? There are false positives, but not false negatives? Hmmm..... I'm not sure I agree with that. I'll have to give it some thought and figure out why my alarms go off at that idea.*
** *Judith*
**
Jack Park wrote: *Karl Popper also said that. I don't recall him using "sometimes". My recollection is that "negate and prove that" is the only way to "prove" anything, according to Popper.
Jack