Critique of Popper’s Demarcation Criterion and Freud's Theory of Dreams

Critique of Popper’s Demarcation Criterion

• Problems with Popper's Argument: Popper's argument against the scientific validity of Freud’s dream theory faces several issues, primarily concerning the demarcation criterion itself.

• Critical Scrutiny: Historians and philosophers of science have critically examined Popper's criterion, often concluding that it does not withstand scrutiny in its original form.

History and Popper's Theory

• Descriptive vs. Prescriptive: Popper intended his theory to be both descriptive and prescriptive.

• Historical Evidence: If historically successful scientific theories are unfalsifiable by Popper's standards, his criterion is problematic.

• Lakatos's Critique: Lakatos noted that scientific theories exist in an “ocean of anomalies,” meaning they face falsifiers but are maintained.

• Copernicus's Theory: Copernicus’s theory faced falsification due to the failure to observe stellar parallax, yet scientists like Galileo and Kepler adhered to it.

  • Stellar parallax: the theory predicts that the relative position of stars as observed from the earth will change as the earth moves in its orbit around the sun

• Typical Scientific Behavior: Historians of science suggest retaining theories despite apparent falsifiers is typical.

Theoretical Criticism of Popper

• Falsificationism: Popper’s theory of falsificationism underpins his demarcation criterion.

• Epistemic Value: Predictive successes do not enhance a theory's epistemic value. Successes do not make the theory more probable.

• Einstein's Theory: Passing tests, such as eclipse observations affirming Einstein's theory, should seemingly increase the probability of its truth, but Popper disagrees.

Rejection of Inductive Reasoning

• Deductive Terms: Popper rejects inductive reasoning and insists science can only be rational deductively.

• Logical Asymmetry: Popper bases his philosophy on a logical asymmetry: the falsity of consequences implies the theory is false, but the truth of consequences does not prove the theory true.

• Predictive Failure: Popper emphasizes predictive failure as the touchstone of science.

Problems with Popper’s Logic

• Ideal Situation: The logic applies ideally when a theory strictly entails a prediction and the falsifying observation is true.

• Real-World Application: Popper acknowledges this ideal situation rarely arises: Theories require additional statements (background assumptions) that cannot be known with certainty. Observation statements themselves aren't definitively true or probable.

• Strict Falsifiability: Strictly speaking, no theory is falsifiable.

• Methodological Decisions: Popper suggests scientists must accept background and observation statements as true to apply falsificationism, though these decisions are unjustifiable and risky.

• Scientists may dismiss true theories as false by falsely supporting the background of observation statements.

Historical Illustration: Uranus and Newton’s Theory

• Uranus's Orbit: Astronomers applied Newton’s theory of universal gravitation to predict Uranus's orbit, but observations mismatched predictions.

• Rejection of Newton's Theory?: Instead of discarding Newton’s theory, astronomers questioned the auxiliary assumption that Uranus was the last planet.

• Discovery of Neptune: Astronomers Urban Le Verrier and John Couch Adams used Newton’s theory to predict the existence and location of Neptune, which was subsequently discovered.

• Problem with Falsificationism: Any theory, like Newton’s, relies on assumptions. A predictive failure could stem from a false assumption rather than the theory itself.

Auxiliary Assumptions & Methodological Strictures

• Holding Assumptions True: Popper insists scientists must treat auxiliary assumptions as true when testing a theory.

• Forbidden Explanations: Attributing failure to an auxiliary assumption is seen as explaining away negative results.

• Potential for Error: This decision may be wrong, as seen with Uranus’s orbit.

• Appeal Procedure: Popper later allowed an “appeal procedure” against falsification but lacked specifics.

Methodological Conventionalism

• Ungrounded Decisions: Decisions scientists make are based on methodological considerations.

• Lakatos's Description: Lakatos called Popper a “methodological conventionalist,” as science relies on unjustifiable decisions.

• Predictive Success: Popper abandons the intuition that predictive success should be considered valuable information.

• Rational Thinking: The rejection of Newton’s theory was not rational because the predictive measures built credence in the theory.

Implications for Falsifiability as a Demarcation Criterion

• Methodological Version Too Demanding: Popper's methodological criterion denigrates defending falsified hypotheses, rendering theories unscientific.

• Historical Evidence: History reveals that scientists defend theories by shifting blame, appearing rational as the background or observation statement could be the cause.

• Caution with Popper's Dismissal: Popper’s dismissal of Freud’s theory based on this criterion should be reconsidered.

Formal Version of the Demarcation Criterion

• Logical Contradiction: Popper's formal criterion requires theories to have logically possible observation statements that contradict them.

• Strict Falsifiability: It is difficult to identify a serious scientific theory that meets this strict falsifiability criterion in a way meaningful to the scientific process.

• Background Assumptions: Theories entail testable predictions only with background assumptions, as seen with Newton’s theory.

• Repulsive Force: Popper stated Newtonian theory would be contradicted if “the force of gravity were to become a repulsive force”. While a possibility, it is not relevant to science.

The Rationale Behind Falsificationism

• Burden of Support: These points increase the burden on Popper to support his criterion.

• Falsificationist View: Popper’s rationale stems from his falsificationist view of science, which has its own problems.

• Weak Proposal: If falsificationism is rejected, the demarcation criterion appears weak. Why should a logically contradictory statement matter when empirical evidence exists?

• Artifact of Philosophy: This demand seems like an artifact of Popper’s philosophy of science.

• Hansson's Analysis: Hansson (2006) found that modern science does not primarily aim at falsification, questioning why falsifiability is necessary.

Testability in Science

• Misconceived Testability: Popper equates testability with falsifiability.

• Bayesianism: Bayesianism offers an alternative, evaluating theories based on probability considering the evidence.

• Empirical Evidence: Empirical evidence can accrue for or against theories, even if not falsifiable in Popper’s sense, aligning with both common sense and scientific practice.

Explanationism

• Balanced View: Explanationism provides a balanced view.

• Theory Evaluation: A theory's explanatory power counts in its favor, while failures count against it.

• Acceptance or Rejection: Evidence can lead to acceptance or rejection, regardless of logical contradiction by observation statements.

• Alignment with Practice: Explanationism aligns with common sense and scientific practices.

• Scientifically Acceptable Explanations: Positing a well-elucidated causal process to explain a range of relevant facts in precise detail.

Conclusion on Popper’s Demarcation Criterion

• Questionable Criterion: Popper’s demarcation criterion, in both versions, is questionable. Citing it alone is insufficient to dismiss Freud’s theory.

• Equivalence to Other Theories: Even if Freud’s theory is unfalsifiable, it may be no different than other accepted scientific theories, like Darwin’s or Newton’s.

The “Falsifiability” of Freud’s Theory of Dreams

• Claims Can Contradict: Freud’s theory makes claims that can be contradicted with accepted background assumptions.

• Limbic System Activity: If the limbic system were inactive during dreaming, it would

Critique of Popper’s Demarcation Criterion

• Problems: Popper's demarcation criterion faces issues and has been critically scrutinized.

History and Popper's Theory

• Descriptive vs. Prescriptive: Popper's theory aimed to be both.

• Historical Evidence: Theories may be maintained despite falsifiers (Lakatos's critique).

• Copernicus's Theory: Faced falsification (stellar parallax) but was still supported.

• Typical Scientific Behavior: Retaining theories despite falsifiers is common.

Theoretical Criticism of Popper

• Falsificationism: Underpins Popper’s criterion.

• Epistemic Value: Popper rejects that predictive successes increase a theory's epistemic value.

• Einstein's Theory: Even successful tests don't increase probability of truth, according to Popper.

Rejection of Inductive Reasoning

• Deductive Terms: Popper insists on deductive rationality in science.

• Logical Asymmetry: Falsity of consequences implies a theory is false, but truth doesn't prove it.

• Predictive Failure: Emphasized as crucial.

Problems with Popper’s Logic

• Ideal Situation: Logic applies when theories strictly entail predictions and observations are true.

• Real-World Application: Rarely ideal; theories need background assumptions that aren't certain. No theory is strictly falsifiable.

• Methodological Decisions: Scientists make risky, unjustifiable decisions to accept statements as true.

Historical Illustration: Uranus and Newton’s Theory

• Uranus's Orbit: Mismatched predictions using Newton’s theory.

• Rejection of Newton's Theory?: Instead, astronomers questioned assumptions and discovered Neptune.

• Problem with Falsificationism: Failures may stem from false assumptions, not the theory itself.

Auxiliary Assumptions & Methodological Strictures

• Holding Assumptions True: Popper insists on treating assumptions as true during testing.

• Forbidden Explanations: Attributing failure to assumptions is discouraged but can be correct.

• Appeal Procedure: Later allowed appeals against falsification.

Methodological Conventionalism

• Ungrounded Decisions: Science relies on unjustifiable decisions (Lakatos).

• Predictive Success: Popper abandons the value of predictive success.

• Rational Thinking: Rejecting well-supported theories isn't rational.

Implications for Falsifiability as a Demarcation Criterion

• Methodological Version Too Demanding: Denigrates defending falsified hypotheses.

• Historical Evidence: Scientists often defend theories by shifting blame, appearing rational.

• Caution with Popper's Dismissal: Dismissal of theories based solely on falsifiability should be reconsidered.

Formal Version of the Demarcation Criterion

• Logical Contradiction: Requires theories have contradictory observation statements.

• Strict Falsifiability: Few theories meet this meaningfully.

The Rationale Behind Falsificationism

• Burden of Support: Popper's criterion requires strong support.

• Falsificationist View: Stems from falsificationism, which has issues.

• Weak Proposal: Demarcation criterion appears weak if falsificationism is rejected.

• Artifact of Philosophy: Seems like an artifact of Popper’s philosophy.

• Hansson's Analysis: Modern science doesn't primarily aim at falsification.

Testability in Science

• Misconceived Testability: Popper equates testability with falsifiability.

• Bayesianism: Offers alternative theory evaluation based on probability considering evidence.

• Empirical Evidence: Can accrue for or against theories, even if not falsifiable.

Explanationism

• Balanced View: Explanatory power counts for a theory, failures against it.

• Acceptance or Rejection: Regardless of logical contradiction.

• Alignment with Practice: Aligns with common sense and scientific practices.

• Scientifically Acceptable Explanations: Positing a well-elucidated causal process to explain a range of relevant facts in precise detail.

Conclusion on Popper’s Demarcation Criterion

• Questionable Criterion: Popper’s criterion is questionable; insufficient to dismiss theories like Freud’s.

• Equivalence to Other Theories: Unfalsifiable theories may be similar to accepted ones.

The “Falsifiability” of Freud’s Theory of Dreams

• **Claims Can