Popper, Laws, and the Exclusion of Biology from Genuine Science

Abstract

The primary purpose of this paper is to argue that biologists should stop citing Karl Popper on what a genuinely scientific theory is. Various ways in which biologists cite Popper on this matter are surveyed, including the use of Popper to settle debates on methodology in phylogenetic systematics. It is then argued that the received view on Popper--namely, that a genuinely scientific theory is an empirically falsifiable one--is seriously mistaken, that Popper's real view was that genuinely scientific theories have the form of statements of laws of nature. It is then argued that biology arguably has no genuine laws of its own. In place of Popperian falsifiability, it is suggested that a cluster class epistemic values approach (which subsumes empirical falsifiability) is the best solution to the demarcation problem between genuine science and pseudo- or non-science.

How scientific is the science in ethnopharmacology? Historical perspectives and epistemological problems

“…On the other hand, the Popperian methodology of conjecture and refutation is an approach that describes the way theoretical physicists may do science but only partly applies to the life sciences. Popper's epistemiological philosophy and views on scientific method may therefore not be practical overall and there may be many theoretical problems (Stamos, 2007), but his critical rationalism should be useful to the working scientist as it will improve our research. According to Popper, science should aim to not verify hypotheses (at a methodological level) but to falsify them, which makes him a post-positivist verificationist.…”

“…Med. 13, 1121, 2007, which would naturally lead to a dramatic reduction of noise and announcement of incremental data. Even though this idea is not realistic it is nonetheless appealing and reflects the current malpractice of publishing ad hoc findings as a means of increasing the contemporary scientist's portfolio (which typically contains research papers, funding, patents, reviews, etc.).…”

Ethnopharmacological field studies: A critical assessment of their conceptual basis and methods

“…Ethnopharmacology is, by definition, multidisciplinary/transdisciplinary. Following Stamos (2007), we argue that science and scientific theories -and especially ethnopharmacology -by definition have to integrate different clusters of knowledge domains. This allows us both to interpret new knowledge (i.e.…”

“…generated in a field study) in the context of a wider conceptual framework, and to test concepts (hypotheses) derived empirically from previous research. Clearly, field-based research is not an area where the Popperian doctrine of falsifiability can be applied (Stamos, 2007). Of course, in all cases exactness when describing our experiences is essential.…”

Evidence for Evolution Versus Evidence for Intelligent Design: Parallel Confusions

“…This is not a matter of promoting any kind of demarcation criterion between science and non-science. As was suggested by Laudan (1983; see also Stamos 2007), rather than stressing demarcation, we should judge claims on the basis of what can be provided in the way of supporting or refuting empirical evidence, or acknowledge that such claims lack epistemic support. As such, careful consideration is required to make the distinction stated by Hanson (1958), especially when comparing evolutionary biology and ID.…”