It is fairly easy to see that we arrive in this way at a procedure according to which we stop only at a kind of statement that is especially easy to test. For it means that we are stopping at statements about whose acceptance or rejection the various investigators are likely to reach agreement. And if they do not agree, they will simply continue with the tests, or else start them all over again. If this too leads to no result, then we might say that the statements in question were not inter-subjectively testable, or that we were not, after all, dealing with observable events. If some day it should no longer be possible for scientific observers to reach agreement about basic statements this would amount to a failure of language as a means of universal communication. It would amount to a new ‘Babel of Tongues’: scientific discovery would be reduced to absurdity. In this new Babel, the soaring edifice of science would soon lie in ruins.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959)
29. The relativity of basic statements. Resolutions of Frie’s Trilemma., p. 104
Key to effective scientific communication is precision of language. For reasons that Popper states above, this precision allows for the testing of statements, or hypothesis. The more precise the better; additional words may confuse those involved and lead to inappropriate and unfruitful testing. As an aside, this is why most tests of scientific hypotheses are stated in a quantitative manner. This allows for easy comparison and a clear demarcation between corroboration and rejection of theories. For these reasons, it is clear that concepts such as 'oral fixation', 'flow of chi', and 'specified complexity' qualify as only ersatz scientific statements; it is also clear why insistence upon using such statements results in the scientific cacophony referred to by Popper.
0 comments:
Post a Comment