Disproof possibility
The disproof possibility (はんしょうかのうせい British: Falsifiability) is a term spoken in philosophical approach to science, and the hypothesis that is going to be inspected means that it may be disproved by an experiment and observation.
Curl ポパー of the scientific philosopher is proposed. It is explained, "the hypothesis by no means without the method indicating being wrong is not science" in the easy meaning.
Table of contents
Meaning
The hypothesis means that it may be disproved by some kind of experiments and observation that a certain hypothesis has disproof possibility. For example, the hypothesis, "the sun will rise in the east tomorrow" may be disproved by the observation fact "that it was tomorrow, but the sun did not rise in the east". In contrast, I call a hypothesis with the structure that is not disproved by any experiment and observation the hypothesis that I cannot disprove [1].
Or it is said that there was the person who declared, "all of what I say are right". If there is quality to contradict it in the past remark of the person, the correctness of this declaration is denied. But that say that is from which such a contradiction was not found in (he always gives a coherent opinion), and this declaration is right; is not proved. It is a main premise that the remark of the person doing a politician and a political activity does not have self-contradiction either, but itself does not prove the correctness, and the remark about the particularly concrete policy is thin in reliability if I do not have disproof possibility.
Disproof possibility and hypothesis
Primitive proposition
With a primitive proposition, which "the sun will rise in the east tomorrow" is an independent proposition concluded with itself like "Tanaka of the neighbor keeps a dog" semantically. That the primitive proposition can disprove it plainly is either which you cannot disprove. Frequently, a disproof may not be possible in the proposition when the proposition that it is thought that it is scientific in daily life is seen as a primitive proposition. For example, "a communism revolution is angry" (of the materialism if it is in stage), and it is that "the human act is due to the unconscious sex drive" (all) that "the evolution of the creature depend on the survival of the fittest" (all) [2] [3]. It is scientific at a glance, but the hypothesis not to have disproof possibility is frequent in itself when a direct object of the meaning contents of the hypothesis namely the inspection was a past event.
A main hypothesis (hard core) and supporting hypothesis (protective belt)
The hypothesis that is going to be usually inspected holds good through the logical combination of some primitive propositions. And I call the hypothesis of the place where it is a purpose to inspect it exclusively a main hypothesis and call the premise and condition and the propositions that it is with an assistance hypothesis (I assume note * anything a main hypothesis and am quite the option of the person of inspection what you assume a supporting hypothesis).
For example, let's set a hypothesis, "I will see the sun rises in the east tomorrow" as a main hypothesis. People of inspection usually add various premises and conditions then. To be specific, if "observation is not interfered with me" if "it is not rainy tomorrow". Furthermore, in order to avoid vagueness, it is necessary to define it "which range of the horizon can you tell me to have risen in the east if it rises from?". It is postulated the assistance to hypothesis, "the sun rises in the east these tomorrow". It is too natural, and, in the supporting hypothesis, the thing which people of inspection are not usually conscious of is included. And, about each of a main hypothesis and the supporting hypothesis, it is determined whether you can disprove it. That is why "the sun does I see what rise with a main hypothesis from the east, and, as for the hypothesis "that I will see in the sun rising in the east, "it does not rain and "observation is not interfered with me" is established tomorrow" again tomorrow" tomorrow if it does not rain tomorrow and observation is not interfered with me" when it is an assistance hypothesis and no hypothesis that I do it and can disprove about a primitive proposition of all.
Because this hypothesis is the logical reasoning, "observation is not interfered with, but though it was not disproved, "I will see that the sun rises in the east tomorrow," but, "tomorrow, it does not rain" and I" am considered when it was disproved that this hypothesis is not right.
Ad hoc hypothesis
Disproof possibility of the whole theory decreases when I add an ad hoc hypothesis without the disproof possibility as a supporting hypothesis. This is because at least A and B must be able to disprove it to determine whether the reasoning called A ∧ B ⇒ C is proper (logically scientifically) (judging from a request of note * logic, C should have to be able to disprove it, however it comes from that it is admitted that main proposition C may not necessarily disprove it in the natural science directly, and this incorporates the program hypothesis that I cannot disprove in the natural science in a main proposition, and, for example, it is thought that the main proposition of the theory of evolution belongs to this).
Difficulty of the judgment of the disproof possibility
It is difficult for it to be determined whether a certain hypothesis has disproof possibility. I will think about the following experiment. An experiment to hold 降霊会, and to call the soul failed. A hypothesis to be able to call the soul by a method (condition) that the negative scholar used it for a psychic phenomenon this time at least thinks that it was disproved. In contrast, an affirmative scholar argues against a psychic phenomenon with "failure for there to have been a person doubting the existence of the soul". Here, in this 降霊理論, it is a psychic phenomenon to the thing which, as a whole, has disproof possibility if an affirmative scholar adds, "降霊 succeeds if a person doubting the existence of the soul does not enter 降霊会場 and photographs it by a remote video camera". In other words, I can stand in the place of the scientific inspection even if an assertor added a supporting hypothesis to it after a main experiment failed as far as the assistance hypothesis can disprove it. When, for example, it insists, "I cannot analyze the psychic phenomenon scientifically" that disproof possibility is denied. Therefore, which "this hypothesis does not have disproof possibility" is dangerous to concluding, "this is an ad hoc supporting hypothesis" easily.
The criticism using the デュエム - Quine thesis of the kind mentioned above is developed in Keiichi Noe, but Makoto Kogawara shows that I argue that ポパー can already disprove it in writing in and "I peel off for criticism and the succession and development of challenge - ポパー philosophy".
Disproof possibility and para-scientific
I call a viewpoint in the philosophical approach to science to consider only a hypothesis with disproof possibility to be a scientific hypothesis the principle of disproof. The concept of the disproof possibility was suggested as science and para-scientific criteria if I saw it for history of philosophy. When it is the entirety of the hypothesis that is not yet disproved while having disproof possibility, according to the principle of disproof, the scientific theory is defined. And the hypothesis that kept on enduring a severe disproof test is considered that more reliable. The exponent of the principle of disproof is curl ポパー. Because there was not disproof possibility, ポパー criticized a theory of psychoanalysis and Adler and Marx of Freud when not scientific. The tendency that is going to characterize para-science including a different element as well as disproof possibility is strong now. I cannot disprove it, and Terence Hines nominates a negative manner to imputation and inspection of the proof responsibility for a para-scientific characteristic other than the nature.
Footnote
- Concept itself of the ^ disproof possibility does not have a further meaning. You must not confuse the principle of disproof with accepting the existence of the concept called the disproof possibility. In addition, the concept of the disproof possibility does not remove a meaning, the value of the proposition that I cannot disprove or usability.
- I lose for the struggle for existence, and all the non-fittest will perish, but, according to this ^ idea, according to the theory, the non-fittest cannot inspect whether the non-fittest really perishes, and only the fittest lives anymore because one will not only live now. In addition, "the body which was the non-fittest" becomes available for the proof of no error if a certain seed perishes if I live saying "this is because it was the fittest".
- If "the body which was in stage of the materialism" does not occur if a communism revolution happens in a certain ^ society, the proof of no error is enabled saying "this is because there was not still it for a stage of the materialism".
References
- ポパー "logic Yoshikazu Ouchi, Hiroshi Mori reason, 恒星社厚生閣, 1971 of the scientific discovery. ISBN 4769902549
- ポパー "logic (bottom) of the scientific discovery" Yoshikazu Ouchi, Hiroshi Mori reason, 恒星社厚生閣, 1972. ISBN 4769902557
In addition, things promoting understanding of "the criticism for the principle of disproof" will include two of the next.
- デュエム with "a physical purpose structure" Michio Kobayashi, Yoichi Kumagai, Shin Abiko reason, fidelity Publishing, 1991. ISBN 4326100885
- It is Takashi Iida reason, fidelity Publishing, 1992 from Quine "logical point of view". ISBN 4326198877
Allied item
Outside link
This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia Disproof possibility
This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.
In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기