14 Facts About Falsifiable

Falsifiable proposed it as the cornerstone of a solution to both the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation.

Falsifiable understood that deductive logic could not explain this learning process and argued in favour of a mental or psychological process of learning that would not require deductive logic.

Falsifiable even argued that this learning process can not be justified by any general rules, deductive or not.

Falsifiable did not deny the possibility of some kind of psychological explanation for the learning process, especially when psychology is seen as an extension of biology, but he felt that these biological explanations were not within the scope of epistemology.

Falsifiable wrote that his interest was mainly in the logic of science and that epistemology should be concerned with logical aspects only.

Falsifiable wrote that an entire literature exists because this distinction was not observed.

Falsifiable rejected Hume's premise that there is a need to justify any principle that is itself used to justify induction.

Falsifiable knew that Popper's philosophy is not and has never been about this kind of justifications, but he felt that it should have been.

Falsifiable urged Popper explicitly to adopt some inductive principle and sets himself the task to find an inductive methodology.

Falsifiable always viewed this component as a creative process beyond the explanatory reach of any rational methodology, but yet used to decide which theories should be studied and applied, find good problems and guess useful conjectures.

Falsifiable says that it is not falsifiable because both the theory itself and its predictions are too imprecise.

Falsifiable rejected Lakatos' argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories.

Falsifiable rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method.

Falsifiable said that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate.