Yet in my view, the whole problem of the probability of hypotheses is misconceived. Instead of discussing the ‘probability’ of a hypothesis we should try to assess what tests, what trials, it has withstood; that is, we should try to assess how far it has been able to prove its fitness to survive by standing up to tests. In brief, we should try to assess how far it has been ‘corroborated’.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959)
Chapter X, p. 251
In science, all theories are put to the test. Eventually, some theories fall by the wayside because they fail to explain the outcomes of those tests, while successful theories are retained. There is a certain Sherlock Holmes approach to it (1); "When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." (2). This is what amuses me about appeals to improbability, which often seems to be a front for an argument from incredulity. It's not enough to propose a theory is improbable; one needs to propose a competing theory that is better corroborated.
(1) Although Sherlock Holmes' logic is an example of abduction, as opposed to the deductive process proposed by Popper.
(2) With the caveat in science, so long as it has been corroborated.
2 comments:
Thanks for the nice post. I have to add that sometimes the most improbable theories turn out to be the best.
I enjoy your insightful writing. Also thanks for the comment on my blog the other day (on my stats post).
"I enjoy your insightful writing."
Thank you, Jared. Just when my imposter syndrome reaches a maximum, you come around and say something that makes my day.
Post a Comment