关于Falsifiability的困惑
我们研究的目的到底是"证实"还是"证伪"？
如果是"证实"，研究就没有Falsifiability,研究不scientific, 如果是"证伪"，即每个研究及其结果必须具有Falsifiability，即我们的研究就存在漏洞，就会challenged.
似乎是个死胡同。
我清楚文章的最后必须交代自己研究的limitations, 但是我还是困惑, 这种哲学问题面前我就是转不过弯。
我的问题是：为什么研究就必须有Falsifiability？世界上就没有“真理”了？
下面的解释就非常有意思。
Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden.
Falsificationists claim that any theory that is not falsifiable is unscientific. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by the proponents of Popper's philosophy as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his sexual orientation may be viewed as confirming he is homosexual simply by denying that he is; and if he has sex with women, he may be accused of trying to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate his heterosexuality to the analyst. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is homosexual is not falsifiable. This has found its way into several dystopian novels.
http://www.answers.com/topic/falsifiability
我们研究的目的到底是"证实"还是"证伪"？
如果是"证实"，研究就没有Falsifiability,研究不scientific, 如果是"证伪"，即每个研究及其结果必须具有Falsifiability，即我们的研究就存在漏洞，就会challenged.
似乎是个死胡同。
我清楚文章的最后必须交代自己研究的limitations, 但是我还是困惑, 这种哲学问题面前我就是转不过弯。
我的问题是：为什么研究就必须有Falsifiability？世界上就没有“真理”了？
下面的解释就非常有意思。
Falsifiability is an important concept in the philosophy of science that amounts to the principle that a proposition or theory cannot be scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false.
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be at least in principle possible to make an observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that observation had not been made. For example, the proposition "All crows are black" would be falsified by observing one white crow. A falsifiable theory must make a statement concerning what is, or will be, forbidden.
Falsificationists claim that any theory that is not falsifiable is unscientific. Psychoanalytic theory, for example, is held up by the proponents of Popper's philosophy as an example of an ideology rather than a science. A patient regarded by his psychoanalyst as "in denial" about his sexual orientation may be viewed as confirming he is homosexual simply by denying that he is; and if he has sex with women, he may be accused of trying to buttress his denials. In other words, there is no way the patient could convincingly demonstrate his heterosexuality to the analyst. This is an example of what Popper called a "closed circle". The proposition that the patient is homosexual is not falsifiable. This has found its way into several dystopian novels.
http://www.answers.com/topic/falsifiability