Verification and Falsification

Abstract: Verification and Falsification standards as a scientific demarcation of the two propositions can be attributed to the experience of science test, this test is to use the substance to be tested proposition or theory can explain the empirical observations for testing, so testing can avoid the paradigm of understanding not pass the test caused some difficulties. proved Logically complex, unworkable in practice, falsification, although Logically simple, but equally difficult in practice. confirmed that the asymmetry and the falsification falsification does not mean that a more viable . alone are not sufficient to prove or disprove scientific demarcation.

Keywords: science; confirmed; falsification; demarcation
Abstract: As two criteria of demarcating science, verification and falsification are the experience test of scientific propositions, and in essence the test is to explain the observable experiences used in the test by the proposition or theory to be tested, thus the test difficulties arising from the incommensurability of paradigms can be avoided. Verification is complex in Logic and unfeasible in practice, while falsification is simple in Logic but the same difficulty in practice. Verification and Falsification are asymmetrical and this asymmetry does not indicate that falsification is more feasible. Verification or falsification alone is not enough to demarcate science.

Keywords:: science; verification; falsification; criterion of demarcation

A scientific demarcation of the two standards: Verification and Falsification

Philosophy of science, first of all involves the demarcation of science, that is clear, "What is science," or "what is science." In this regard, Philosophy of science in the 20th century, two important results obtained, namely, on "Science "or" scientific propositions "in the sense of empirical test paper, two typical demarcation criteria: First, confirm that the principles of, first, the principle of falsifiability.

Positivism, Logical positivism in particular, explicitly verifiability as a "scientific" demarcation criteria, as "proposition (scientific) significance of the" standards: a statement (proposition) if and only if the principle can be empirically There is confirmed when the (scientific) sense. In their view, metaphysical propositions can not confirm it because there is no (scientific) sense. In this way, metaphysics and science have drawn a line, and was completely excluded from the scientific outside. Here, "confirmed" is to experience directly or indirectly confirmed the fact that proposition is true.

Confirm the principle of logical view of complex and difficult in practice (see below), Popper (Popper) proposed the contrary the principle of falsifiability: "can not confirm as the demarcation of the is falsifiability. In other words, I do not ask science systems in the positive sense be chosen once and for all; I require it to have such a logical form: it can help in the negative sense of the empirical testing of the method is selected; experience in the scientific system are likely to be experienced to be refuted. "[1] (black system in original) According to this principle, the experience can be observed only be falsified (refuted) and is scientific. later Falsification made some fine amendments to this, it's a single proposition or theory replacing falsification falsification of the theory of series, and that the test propositions and theories, at least two competing theories and experimental three-way duel between, but the meaning of falsifiability principle itself has not changed.


Proposition 2, the test of real science

From a scientific fact of existence can be concluded that, in principle, to accept the test of experience can be observed, is indeed a basic requirement of science. Popper said: "Of course I can only experience a system under test, it acknowledged that it is empirical or scientific. "[1] of science, whether it is confirmed or falsified, they are actually testing, and ultimately must be attributed to the observed empirical testing empirical propositions. In fact, testing is to be tested proposition (or theory) with the proposition that attempts to grasp the object and goal of comparing the facts of relevant experience to determine whether the two match, and on the experience of the object and the target is described in the form of fact, this description test can be observed only proposition, so, if we can confirm or falsify by establishing a scientific proposition, that ultimately can be observed only through empirical testing to do this, and that only experience can be observed directly accept the proposition can be observed to experience test. The so-called "theory test" first to the theory itself has been tested by experience as a precondition. Therefore, the theory test can be observed in the final analysis is an empirical test. On the surface, the scientific propositions to be tested are two types: one is the full name propositions, such propositions as soon as the necessary confirmation of the so-called laws of science; one is the singular proposition (such as "After the sun would bend when the stars") or have special significance, said the existence of propositions (such as "quark exists") This is the principle of empirical propositions can be observed. In fact, the latter proposition is to test the former category with the empirical fact propositions propositions deduced from the former type of inference (or prediction). In other words, the real science to be tested propositions are universal in the form of propositions, which are beyond the content of the experience (or scientific experience will be transformed into a simple loss of their own existence), are "not observed" transcendental proposition can not directly accept the lesson test, can be interpreted only by their experience to export the proposition can be observed to be tested indirectly. empirical testing of scientific theories as well. Accordingly, the discussion here, although limited to the proposition, but it also applies to scientific theories.

We see that science is neither a collection of experience, nor is it transcendent collection, it has empirical propositions, but also transcendental propositions, and propositions as a transcendent goal of science for science is more important. According to the previous discussion, the scientific super- Proposition experience must be transformed into the experience of observation propositions to be examined. logical positivism see this problem and proposed hierarchical language model to illustrate the transcendental propositions (theoretical proposition) to empirical propositions (true proposition) of the conversion. But In fact, the theoretical proposition and the transcendent experience of direct inspection experience could be the fact that propositions are not so sharp between the boundaries, from the theoretical proposition to its transcendent experience is a deductive process of reasoning rather than inductive process, with logical necessity, and the concept of which does not need to assign additional meaning outside of the theory. As a corollary of the experience of empirical propositions do not need to test the same meaning assigned additional rules, because experience is always penetrated by the theory, independent of the theory is not purely empirical propositions exist. The significance of the concept of experience by which it is "whole" rather than its present location by a specific, required by a particular proposition. that is, experience, and of the concepts used in the inference must be provided with the theory empirical meaning clear, or it can not be a prerequisite for the transcendental theory of propositional logic to export. In fact, science even part of one of the transcendent, but also with the empirical basis, although not from experience to the transcendental logic of the inevitable . Therefore, if the scientific proposition is true in particular the experience of testing theoretical propositions require certain rules, these rules are only the experience of the concept of meaning into the operating rules of behavior observed, and this is the actual experience, but only testing process.

This suggests that the experience of testing scientific propositions is possible, but there is a basic condition that should be tested (including the inference of) propositions, and for testing empirical propositions can be observed strictly in the same theoretical background. The actual situation It is also this: a theory to be tested in the experience derived propositions, but also provides for inspection of the experience of meaningful propositions can be observed, or to obtain a meaningful test method of empirical propositions can be observed. You can believe that this is available test of a basic principle. with the sense of quantum mechanics, relativity, or the observation statements to the test (to confirm or falsify) the experience of Newtonian classical mechanics inference is meaningless, and vice versa. with Kuhn's view, that is, paradigm or norm type of incommensurability. This again shows that in the scientific understanding of the process, not can not be tested in addition to the proposition or theory tests to find the meaning of the rules of experience.

However, according to this test of scientific understanding of the experience of proposition, paradigm or paradigm incommensurability appointment raises a difficult problem. Delicate Falsification of experience and testing requirements (at least) two competing theories among "Duel." This "fight" as long as the (only) test conducted by the experience, it must comply with the above principles can be tested. This means that the two theories must be used to test the proposition of the experience of meaning can be observed to the provisions of the same can not be split on their views. To this end, they must coexist in the same higher level of theory, or in the same "paradigm" under. Obviously, such a test even if the results are falsified, it can not lead to more theoretical paradigm of high-level updates and changes. However, this is the actual facts and scientific development is not consistent. From another perspective, falsification of scientific discovery as a basic characterization, and must contribute to the theory must be updated and the paradigm change, and it is true.

According to the above the problem requires us to understand the scientific development of the actual empirical testing of propositions. Here, we note that the simple and exquisite Falsification Falsification is obviously different. To "falsify" as an example, the former view, a proposition an observation or theory, if the same statement (proposition) conflict (or it was decided to be construed as a conflict), they were falsified. who believes that "if and only if one has the following features of the theory is T ' have been proposed, a scientific theory T was only falsified. T 'is characterized by: �� Compared with T, T' experience with more than super content, that is, T 'predict novel facts, it seems that according to T is impossible, or even prohibited by the fact that T; �� T 'able to explain the success of the previous T, that is, T is not to refute all the content (in the observation within the limits of error) are included in T' content Among; �� T 'there was some super I have been Identified. "[2] (emphasis in original system, the same below) can be seen that the falsification of fine falsificationism updated scientific theory is a basic condition and way, simple falsification Falsificationism not. It is clear that the former is more in line with the actual scientific development. This is the so-called "falsification" (a proposition or theory), in fact, the proposition is to be tested or a theory through its means under specific conditions in order to gain experience in interpretation of inference, to explain the experience of testing for the experience of state can be observed (the individual facts.) confirmed that its real terms as well. In sum, the "test" in real terms is that "interpretation" : confirm existing theories or propositions meant to explain the observed facts, falsification is observed that the fact that the existing theory or proposition can not explain.

Links to Free Download Center http://www.hi138.com paper should therefore be understood that the experience of scientific proposition or theory test: the proposition or theory to explain the observed experience (particular facts). This experience as a theory presumption that they expected the "new facts", as that is the earlier theoretical predictions, and predictions indicate also observed that this "new reality" experience conditions or methods. This is in line with previously mentioned testability principles (which can be a verifiable test of intrinsic and falsifiability, and confirmed, and falsified test results from the scientific point of view the basic requirements). This also avoids the paradigm incommensurability caused by the above difficult to test the two theories compete through experience that is possible anymore, and that falsification of which will also allow (cause) theory update and paradigm change. Thus, while the paradigm incommensurability, but the new theory of Paradigm can still use the old paradigm of experience can be observed under the test, but this test is a reinterpretation of the original empirical facts.

If this test to understand the proposition, then the scientific positivism insists the continuity can be maintained, while the ongoing revolution in falsificationism tendency can be overcome.


3 confirmed, and the logic of falsification and difficulties and non-symmetry

First, confirm that principle is not only logically complex, in practice it is difficult to overcome the difficulties faced.

Confirm the induction of the scientific view based on the principle. Popper see, verifiability criterion of demarcation as a scientific proposition is actually dependent on the inductive method. But, "Hume pointed out that the sum can not be established in logic is completely right. He claim that there is no logical argument to allow us to correct recognition 'experience that we have not had the experience we have had examples of similar cases'. "[3]" in an attempt to resort to the experience by looking for the induction basis, will inevitably lead to infinite regress. As a result, We can not say that theory deduced from observation statements, statements can not be observed by looking for rational argument for the theory. "[3] That is, the inductive method to the process from experience to theory is not established, it does not have a conclusion logical necessity, because from experience to theory is in fact known from a single statement (established by observation and experiment, the experience of statements always be used to test this statement) to the full name of the statement (by testing scientific propositions, laws or theories), between the latter two did not necessarily follow. That being the case, confirmed that the proposition is not only unreasonable, but also impossible.

However, science is not experience, and scientific propositions (or scientific theories) must have experience of certainty and beyond a general sense, and this can only be obtained through empirical testing. This is a scientific whom a basic requirement of science, no matter what our specific to The standard definition of science. Thus, the experience proved difficult proposition is: the individual can be observed in limited experience with the general transcendental proposition (or theory) may be characterized by the infinite exists between the logical insurmountable divide. and, in front of have pointed out that the experience of transcendental propositions confirm (or disprove) in fact can only be indirectly inferred through its experience, that is a direct test of the proposition to be tested can only be inferred, rather than the proposition itself. More specifically, to test the indirect main features: on the one hand, testing must be "predicted" for you. From the hypothesis to be tested to make testable predictions, is to examine the experience of the key assumptions, only through such predictions will be tested to used to test the assumptions and empirical facts link up to empirical testing is possible. On the other hand, is usually used to validate the empirical fact is indirect, is the result of inference. such as "the universe is expanding" is the theory the "Doppler Effect" and experience, "observed galaxy spectrum to the red end of the shift" inference, and thus directly infer the "observed galaxies relative to our back line (away from us and to) ", and then to promote the" observed galaxies away from each other ", the last inference is" the universe is expanding. "In fact, even" the earth around the sun "is not the fact that people experience in direct observation. In addition, due to the speed of light is limited, it is now not see the events now taking place but the results of previous events, so that we can not in principle be used to verify the existence of the current state of the object on the predictions of the direct empirical fact. logically Look, as a corollary of the right after the piece is not necessarily guaranteed to be verified propositions as antecedent (premise) is also incorrect. At the same time, experience, reasoning can be used for testing the permeability of the experience of observation is difficult to avoid, namely, the experience can be observed and inspection process, the proposition to be tested and the experience of inference is a seer or prejudice (at least always contains elements of the vision or prejudice). In fact, we can not always take off wearing a pair of "theory eye "to search for empirical fact: many things (such as atoms, electrons, neutrons, some of the planets, etc.) are to be predicted before being discovered by the sun when the stars through the gravitational effect of the sun occurred after the bend and it was predicted was observed, and so on. This fact also implies that we can not get direct, naked experience of reality. This means that experience and can not test is not a theory test, but this latter is due to the paradigm incommensurable limit, do not have a valid test of significance. This is a lot of difficult decisions a strict sense, is always full of experience proved impossible. That being the case, the principle of verifiability with boundary demarcation, it has not science.

From the results (the results are confirmed and falsified) point of view, science is indeed the "right" of the proposition and the theory of composition, it is not directly included (it appears in the existing knowledge) false propositions and theories. This shows that the essence of scientific development is the accumulation of proven propositions and theories. This presented a strange paradox: confirmed in practice and theory is impossible, however, science is in fact possible.

Second, the principle of falsifiability test the same logic is simple and practical difficulties.

The rationale for the principle of falsifiability is that although Adequate Condition after blunt truths of reasoning does not necessarily guarantee its antecedent is also true, however, before the pieces after the inevitable fake fake. Or that a universal proposition, though no matter how many certain criteria (which is always limited experience) are not sufficient to confirm it, but as long as there is a negative criterion is sufficient to falsify it (for categorical proposition, the universal affirmative proposition with the material and the special called negative proposition contradictory relationship, that whoever is really a second false; universal negative proposition and the special relationship, said affirmative proposition is true). Obviously, just from the logical point of view, falsification of propositions is more likely than the simple and proven.

However, during the actual examination, falsified at least proven to be as difficult. Because people have reason to reject the total experience for the inspection of any "evidence", including appropriate adjustments to the theoretical system, such as replacing or adding certain assumptions (propositions) to remove any evidence of adverse experiences ("counter-example"). As Quine (Quinn) said: "Under no circumstances can any statement that is true, if we make enough rest of the system if drastic adjustments Even a statement very close to the outer face of indomitable experience hallucinations can be an excuse or modify the law known as the kind of logic certain statements that are considered to be true. On the contrary, for the same reasons, no statements are free from any changes. "[4] (where there may be some psychological factors and the nature of science. Science is always trying to prove rather than to seek falsification.) Lakatos had" Dion • Quinn argument "(if there is enough imagination, we can adjust the exposure to the background of a theory of knowledge, so that the theory will never be" refuted ") raised as a typical criticism of this comparison, but still acknowledged that" sophisticated falsification Science advocates allowing replacement body (lines) of any part of, the only condition that the 'progress' means replacement, so the replacement can successfully anticipate novel facts. "[2] In this light, if any the experience can be used to test evidence be rejected or digestion, to falsify (or confirm) a proposition is of course impossible.

In fact, the proposition to be tested by testing the actual experience of inference can be observed, is large, minor premise joint decision. Therefore, even for a single proposition is concerned, the inference to be falsified, one can not necessarily conclude that as a basis falsification of the proposition is the premise: Error may also be brought into the empirical and the minor premise. Seen in this light, the composition of the theory of many propositions, the logic of falsification is more difficult to apply. The reason is obvious corollary of this theory even if they are falsified, we can not determine what exactly is a proposition of this theory "wrong." This is what people can reject or remove various reasons put forward empirical evidence theory be proven to prevent pseudo-logical basis.

Finally, verifiable and falsifiable is asymmetrical.

Verifiable and falsifiable asymmetry first in their rationale for asymmetry. We see verifiable requirements is (infinite) number of positive criterion, and, on the transcendental proposition is, then more limited experience is not sufficient criterion; falsifiable requires experience of at least one negative criterion, and as long as one is enough. Second, in principle, for the experience of proven experience can be as falsification, but the experience can be falsified can not be definitely confirmed by the experience (transcendental scientific proposition is the case). The reason is that, regardless of the manner in which no adequate basis for determining a true empirical propositions, and only for the true proposition is truth itself, can only be confirmed before and can not be falsified (otherwise, the truth will not become the truth). Finally, as a general point of view, in practical science activities, confirmed that emphasis on "proof of context", falsification is mainly limited to "find context" (However, this is not completely the boundaries of the middle). It should be noted that the above has shown that despite the falsifiable and verifiable is asymmetric, falsification is still better than in practice proved more easier and more feasible. reposted elsewhere in the Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com 4 single by the principle of verifiability principle of falsifiability as the demarcation of science can not be

The above study shows that to a scientific demarcation of simply relying on verifiable principles or principles are not falsifiable. In fact, the principle of verifiability complete demarcation of science not only can not, it will destroy the science, so entirely confined to the experience did not go beyond experience. because only empirical propositions can in principle fully confirmed by experience, but even this proposition difficult to actually fully confirmed - full induction actually in most cases is still a matter of principle (that is, in practice not possible). However, the experience can not be achieved can not go beyond science to the general statement of the pursuit of science (general proposition), If so, science will inevitably degenerate into the experience completely, thus losing its own existence. But on the other hand, if the science out of the experience, the principle of verifiability completely bound to fail. because logically, the experience can be confirmed (or falsified) will be able to directly or indirectly, with the experience to associate, and even to confirm or has confirmed that the meaning of. completely beyond the experience of the proposition (such as "God created the world", "The world is material") because there is no order associated with the experience and the experience can not be confirmed or falsified. even the radical empiricism of logical positivism which is also very clear that it therefore required to give up completely confirmed, but satisfied with a certain degree of "plausibility" (adhere to the principle of verifiability weak sense) . can be seen at most only require part of the scientific verifiability. However, the cost of doing so is: science must give up the pursuit of absolute truth.

Similarly, a single by the falsifiability can not draw the scientific community. As noted, the principle of falsifiability requires the falsification face in practice proved more difficult than even. In addition, must be falsifiable be absurd . If the scientific falsifiability as the demarcation criteria only, it means something wrong to allow any access to science. However, science can be true is absurd, and can be infallible but is not necessarily science. For example, , a completely transcendent experience of propositions and can be observed belong to the field and experience in the field of transcendental, and in between these two areas there is no logical necessity pathway, or vice versa, such as Albert Einstein said: "We can not logically prove the existence of the external world. "[5] This means that the proposition can not be completely transcendent experience of propositional logic can be observed and a bond, in other words, the logical transition from the former to the latter can not. If the full transcendental Proposition force beyond their own experience with the associated observable (such as witchcraft as such), it certainly does not meet the rules of deductive logic, this association must be available so absurd, but it is not so accepted by science.

In fact, science is not false pool, the principle of falsifiability is not science (proposition, theory) the final acceptance of principles, rather, is a rejection of the principle: Those who have been falsified (assuming this is possible) should be excluded from science. because the reality is that a proposition to enter science, first of all seek is to confirm and not falsified. Meanwhile, the experience can be observed can not be independent, and is the depth of human knowledge and with the continued expansion of changes, single falsification by such experience, not enough to prevent a proposition to enter science. in the strict sense of the decision experiment does not actually exist, can not exist.

In particular, falsifiability is not an independent scientific principles, and the principle of verifiability, as it can not be used for science and experience in community planning open. This is precisely these two principles as the demarcation criteria of science The Department is not complete.


References
1 [English] KR Popper. Logic of Scientific Discovery (Charles Yu Qiang, Qiu Renzong translation) [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1986.15:14 15
2 [English] Iraq • Lakatos. Methodology of scientific Research programs (blue sign translation) [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1986. 45:137
3 [English] Karl Popper •. Conjecture and refutation (Fu quarter weight, Jishu Li, Zhou Changzhong, Jiang Yi for the translation) [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House ,1986.59-60. 60.

4 [U.S.] • Willard Quine. From a logical point of view (Jiang Tian Ji, Song Wengan, Zhang Jialong, Chen Qiwei translation) [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House ,1987.40-41
5 [Germany] Einstein. Einstein Collection (Xu Liangying, Li Baoheng, Zhao Zhongli, Fandai in Translation) [M]. Beijing: Commercial Press, 1983.305
Links to Research Papers Download http://www.hi138.com