25.01.2013 Views

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

popper-logic-scientific-discovery

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

of degrees of falsifiability to a large extent upon derivability relations.<br />

Both relations show the form of lattices which are totally connected in<br />

the self-contradiction and in the tautology (cf. section 34). This may be<br />

expressed by saying that a self-contradiction entails every statement<br />

and that a tautology is entailed by every statement. Moreover, empirical<br />

statements, as we have seen, can be characterized as those whose<br />

degree of falsifiability falls into the open interval which is bounded by<br />

the degrees of falsifiability of self-contradictions on the one side, and<br />

of tautologies on the other. Similarly, synthetic statements in general<br />

(including those which are non-empirical) are placed, by the entailment<br />

relation, in the open interval between self-contradiction and<br />

tautology.<br />

To the positivist thesis that all non-empirical (metaphysical)<br />

statements are ‘meaningless’ there would thus correspond the thesis<br />

that my distinction between empirical and synthetic statements, or<br />

between empirical and <strong>logic</strong>al content, is superfluous; for all synthetic<br />

statements would have to be empirical—all that are genuine, that is,<br />

and not mere pseudo-statements. But this way of using words,<br />

though feasible, seems to me more likely to confuse the issue than<br />

to clarify it.<br />

Thus I regard the comparison of the empirical content of two statements<br />

as equivalent to the comparison of their degrees of falsifiability.<br />

This makes our methodo<strong>logic</strong>al rule that those theories should be<br />

given preference which can be most severely tested (cf. the anticonventionalist<br />

rules in section 20) equivalent to a rule favouring<br />

theories with the highest possible empirical content.<br />

36 LEVELS OF UNIVERSALITY AND<br />

DEGREES OF PRECISION<br />

degrees of testability 105<br />

There are other methodo<strong>logic</strong>al demands which may be reduced to<br />

the demand for the highest possible empirical content. Two of these<br />

are outstanding: the demand for the highest attainable level (or<br />

degree) of universality, and the demand for the highest attainable degree<br />

of precision.<br />

With this in mind we may examine the following conceivable<br />

natural laws:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!