Falsiability

rule from a number of individual cases, which is inadmissible in deductive logic.[2] However, if one nds one
single swan that is not white, deductive logic admits the
conclusion that the statement that all swans are white is
false. Falsicationism thus strives for questioning, for falsication, of hypotheses instead of proving them.
For a statement to be questioned using observation, it
needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come
in conict with observation. A key observation of falsiciationism is thus that a criterion of demarcation is
needed to distinguish those statements that can come in
conict with observation and those that cannot (Chorlton,
2012). Popper chose falsiability as the name of this criterion.
My proposal is based upon an asymmetry
between veriability and falsiability; an
asymmetry which results from the logical form
of universal statements. For these are never
derivable from singular statements, but can be
contradicted by singular statements.
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientic Discovery, p. 19.

Are all swans white?

Falsiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis,

or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven
false. A statement is called falsiable if it is possible to
conceive of an observation or an argument which negates
the statement in question. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning to invalidate or show to be
false.

Popper stressed that unfalsiable statements are important in science.[3] Contrary to intuition, unfalsiable statements can be embedded in and deductively entailed by
falsiable theories. For example, while all men are
mortal is unfalsiable, it is a logical consequence of the
falsiable theory that every man dies before he reaches
the age of 150 years.[4] Similarly, the ancient metaphysical and unfalsiable idea of the existence of atoms has
led to corresponding falsiable modern theories. Popper
invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to
name such unfalsiable ideas.[5] In contrast to Positivism,
which held that statements are meaningless if they cannot
be veried or falsied, Popper claimed that falsiability is
merely a special case of the more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that empirical refutation is one of the most eective methods by which theories can be criticized. Criticizability, in contrast to falsiability, and thus rationality, may be comprehensive (i.e.,
have no logical limits), though this claim is controversial
even among proponents of Poppers philosophy and critical rationalism.

For example, by the problem of induction, no number of

conrming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as All swans are white, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan. Thus,
the term falsiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in
one million years, are falsiable in principle, but not in
practice.[1]
The concern with falsiability gained attention by
way of philosopher of science Karl Popper's scientic epistemology falsicationism. Popper stresses the
problem of demarcationdistinguishing the scientic
from the unscienticand makes falsiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsiable is classied as unscientic, and the practice of declaring an unfalsiable theory to be scientically true is pseudoscience.

Overview

The classical view of the philosophy of science is that it is

the goal of science to prove hypotheses like All swans are
white or to induce them from observational data. Popper
argued that this would require the inference of a general

2 Naive falsication
1

2.1

2 NAIVE FALSIFICATION

Two types of statements:

tional and categorical

observa-

All swans are white.

It is impractical to observe all the swans in the world to

In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsiability verify that they are all white.
a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements Even so, the statement all swans are white is testable by
in science.
being falsiable. For, if in testing many swans, the re[6]
Popper noticed that two types of statements are of par- searcher nds a single black swan, then the statement all
swans are white would be falsied by the counterexample
ticular value to scientists.
of the single black swan.
The rst are statements of observations, such as there
is a white swan. Logicians call these statements singular
existential statements, since they assert the existence of 2.2.1 Deductive falsication
some particular thing. They are equivalent to a predicate
calculus statement of the form: There exists an x such that Deductive falsication is dierent from an absence
x is a swan, and x is white.
of verication. The falsication of statements occurs
The second are statements that categorize all instances of through modus tollens, via some observation. Suppose
something, such as all swans are white. Logicians call some universal statement U forbids some observation O:
these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the
form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientic
laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One di- U O
cult question in the methodology of science is: How does Observation O, however, is made:
one move from observations to laws? How can one validly
infer a universal statement from any number of existential
statements?
O
Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow
move from a series of singular existential statements to So by modus tollens,
a universal statement. That is, that one can move from
'this is a white swan', 'that is a white swan', and so on,
to a universal statement such as 'all swans are white.' U
This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is al- Although the logic of nave falsication is valid, it is
ways possible that there may be a non-white swan that rather limited. Nearly any statement can be made to t
has eluded observation (and, in fact, the discovery of the the data, so long as one makes the requisite 'compensatory
Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive inva- adjustments. Popper drew attention to these limitations
lidity of this particular statement).
in The Logic of Scientic Discovery in response to criti-

2.2

Inductive categorical inference

Popper held that science could not be grounded on such

an inferential basis. He proposed falsication as a solution to the problem of induction. Popper noticed that
although a singular existential statement such as 'there is
a white swan' cannot be used to arm a universal statement, it can be used to show that one is false: the singular
existential observation of a black swan serves to show that
the universal statement 'all swans are white' is falsein
logic this is called modus tollens. 'There is a black swan'
implies 'there is a non-white swan,' which, in turn, implies 'there is something that is a swan and that is not
white', hence 'all swans are white' is false, because that
is the same as 'there is nothing that is a swan and that is
not white'.
One notices a white swan. From this one can conclude:
At least one swan is white.
From this, one may wish to conjecture:

cism from Pierre Duhem. W. V. Quine expounded this

argument in detail, calling it conrmation holism. To logically falsify a universal, one must nd a true falsifying
singular statement. But Popper pointed out that it is always possible to change the universal statement or the existential statement so that falsication does not occur. On
hearing that a black swan has been observed in Australia,
one might introduce the ad hoc hypothesis, 'all swans are
white except those found in Australia'; or one might adopt
another, more cynical view about some observers, 'Australian bird watchers are incompetent'.
Thus, nave falsication ought to, but does not, supply
a way of handling competing hypotheses for many subject controversies (for instance conspiracy theories and
urban legends). People arguing that there is no support
for such an observation may argue that there is nothing to
see, that all is normal, or that the dierences or appearances are too small to be statistically signicant. On the
other side are those who concede that an observation has
occurred and that a universal statement has been falsied
as a consequence. Therefore, nave falsication does not
enable scientists, who rely on objective criteria, to present
a denitive falsication of universal statements.

Falsicationism

4 The criterion of demarcation

Popper uses falsication as a criterion of demarcation to
draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientic and those that are unscientic. It is useful to know if
a statement or theory is falsiable, if for no other reason
than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways
in which one might assess the theory. One might at the
least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsiable
theory, or come to see an unfalsiable theory as unsupportable.

Nave falsicationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsication, on the other
hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought
to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to
arrive at an incremental process whereby theories become
less bad.
Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsiable, then it is
Nave falsication considers scientic statements individ- scientic.
ually. Scientic theories are formed from groups of these The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of scisorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be ac- ence not unfalsiable statements but only whole theories
cepted or rejected by scientists. Scientic theories can that contain no falsiable statements; thus it leaves us
always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypothe- with the Duhemian problem of what constitutes a 'whole
ses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of theory' as well as the problem of what makes a statethe scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to ment 'meaningful'. Poppers own falsicationism, thus,
make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, is not only an alternative to vericationism, it is also an
the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded fal- acknowledgement of the conceptual distinction that presifying observations will become so great that it becomes vious theories had ignored.
unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and
a decision will be made to reject it.
In place of nave falsication, Popper envisioned science
as progressing by the successive rejection of falsied theories, rather than falsied statements. Falsied theories
are to be replaced by theories that can account for the
phenomena that falsied the prior theory, that is, with
greater explanatory power. For example, Aristotelian
mechanics explained observations of everyday situations,
but were falsied by Galileo's experiments,[7] and were
replaced by Newtonian mechanics, which accounted for
the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian
mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the
planets and the mechanics of gases. The Youngian wave
theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous
aether) replaced Newtons (and many of the Classical
Greeks) particles of light but in turn was falsied by
the Michelson-Morley experiment and was superseded
by Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einsteins special relativity, which did account for the newly observed phenomena. Furthermore, Newtonian mechanics applied to
the atomic scale was replaced with quantum mechanics, when the old theory could not provide an answer to
the ultraviolet catastrophe, the Gibbs paradox, or how
electron orbits could exist without the particles radiating
away their energy and spiraling towards the centre. Thus
the new theory had to posit the existence of unintuitive
concepts such as energy levels, quanta and Heisenbergs
uncertainty principle.
At each stage, experimental observation made a theory
untenable (i.e., falsied it) and a new theory was found
that had greater explanatory power (i.e., could account for
the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result,
provided greater opportunity for its own falsication.

4.1 Vericationism
Main article: Vericationist
See also: Abductive reasoning
In the philosophy of science, vericationism (also known
as the veriability theory of meaning) holds that a statement must, in principle, be empirically veriable in order that it be both meaningful and scientic. This was
an essential feature of the logical positivism of the socalled Vienna Circle that included such philosophers as
Moritz Schlick, Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, the Berlin
philosopher Hans Reichenbach, and the logical empiricism of A.J. Ayer.
Popper noticed that the philosophers of the Vienna Circle had mixed two dierent problems, that of meaning
and that of demarcation, and had proposed in vericationism a single solution to both. In opposition to this
view, Popper emphasized that there are meaningful theories that are not scientic, and that, accordingly, a criterion of meaningfulness does not coincide with a criterion
of demarcation.
Thus, Popper urged that veriability be replaced with falsiability as the criterion of demarcation. On the other
hand, he strictly opposed the view that non-falsiable
statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad,
and noted that falsicationism does not imply it.[8]

4.2

Use in courts of law

Judge William Overton used falsiability in the McLean

v. Arkansas ruling in 1982 as one of the criteria to determine that "creation science" was not scientic and should
not be taught in Arkansas public schools as such (it can
be taught as religion). The argument was presented by
philosopher, Michael Ruse, who dened the characteristics which constitute science as explanatory, testable, and
tentative; the latter of the three being another term for
falsiability.[9] In his conclusion related to this criterion
Judge Overton stated that "[w]hile anybody is free to approach a scientic inquiry in any fashion they choose, they
cannot properly describe the methodology as scientic, if
they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of
the investigation.[10]

CRITICISMS

world that our best, mature sciences deliver are

strongly supported by evidence and this evidence gives us the strongest reason to believe
them.' That anyway is what is said at the beginning of the advertisement for a recent conference on induction at a celebrated seat of learning in the UK. It shows how much critical rationalists still have to do to make known the message of Logik der Forschung concerning what
empirical evidence is able to do and what it
does.[13]
Nevertheless, many contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers are strongly critical of
Poppers philosophy of science.[14] Poppers mistrust of
inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientic practice.

United States law also enshrined falsiability as part of

the Daubert Standard set by the United States Supreme
5.2 Kuhn and Lakatos
Court for whether scientic evidence is admissible in a
jury trial.
Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic
of science, Thomas Kuhn's inuential book The Structure
of Scientic Revolutions examined in detail the history
5 Criticisms
of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a
conceptual paradigm that strongly inuences the way in
which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to
5.1 Contemporary philosophers
defend their paradigm against falsication, by the addiAdherents of Popper speak with disrespect of profes- tion of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing
a 'paradigm' is dicult, as it requires an individual sciensional philosophy, for example W. W. Bartley:
tist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox
theory.
Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant
in the contemporary professional philosophiSome falsicationists saw Kuhns work as a vindication,
cal dialogue; quite the contrary, he has rusince it provided historical evidence that science proined that dialogue. If he is on the right track,
gressed by rejecting inadequate theories, and that it is
then the majority of professional philosophers
the decision, on the part of the scientist, to accept or rethe world over have wasted or are wasting
ject a theory that is the crucial element of falsicationism.
their intellectual careers. The gulf between
Foremost amongst these was Imre Lakatos.
Poppers way of doing philosophy and that of
Lakatos attempted to explain Kuhns work by arguing
the bulk of contemporary professional philosothat science progresses by the falsication of research
phers is as great as that between astronomy and
programs rather than the more specic universal state[11]
astrology.
ments of nave falsication. In Lakatos approach, a
scientist works within a research program that correRafe Champion:
sponds roughly with Kuhns 'paradigm'. Whereas Popper rejected the use of ad hoc hypotheses as unscientic,
Poppers ideas have failed to convince the
Lakatos accepted their place in the development of new
majority of professional philosophers because
theories.[15]
his theory of conjectural knowledge does not
even pretend to provide positively justied
foundations of belief. Nobody else does bet5.3 Feyerabend
ter, but they keep trying, like chemists still in
search of the Philosophers Stone or physicists
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a
trying to build perpetual motion machines.[12]
more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive
methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos argument for ad
and David Miller:
hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methWhat distinguishes science from all other
ods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on
human endeavours is that the accounts of the
a scientic method, along with any special authority for

6.2

Evolution

science that might derive from such a method. Rather,

he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid
methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend,
any special status that science might have derives from the
social and physical value of the results of science rather
than its method.

and that thus the only appropriate means to understand

economic events is by logically studying the intentions of
individual economic decision-makers, based on certain
fundamental truths.[18][19][20] Prominent gures within
the Austrian School of economics Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek were associates of Karl Poppers, with
whom they co-founded the Mont Pelerin Society.

5.4

6.2 Evolution

Sokal and Bricmont

In their book Fashionable Nonsense (published in the UK

as Intellectual Impostures) the physicists Alan Sokal and
Jean Bricmont criticized falsiability on the grounds that
it does not accurately describe the way science really
works. They argue that theories are used because of their
successes, not because of the failures of other theories.
Their discussion of Popper, falsiability and the philosophy of science comes in a chapter entitled Intermezzo,
which contains an attempt to make clear their own views
of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme
epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

Main article: Objections to evolution: Unfalsiability

6.4 Historicism

Numerous examples of potential (indirect) ways to falsify

common descent have been proposed by its proponents.
J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence
could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[21] Richard Dawkins adds that any other
modern animal, such as a hippo, would suce.[22][23][24]

Karl Popper at rst spoke against the testability of natural

selection [25][26] but later recanted, I have changed my
mind about the testability and logical status of the theory
Sokal and Bricmont write, When a theory successfully
of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity
withstands an attempt at falsication, a scientist will,
to make a recantation.[27]
quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially conrmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher
subjective probability. ... But Popper will have none of
6.3 Young-Earth Creationism
this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of
any idea of 'conrmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probMain article: Omphalos hypothesis
ability'. ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientic theories come to be accepted above all because of
Much of the criticism against young-earth creationism is
their successes. (Sokal and Bricmont 1997, 62f)
based on evidence in nature that the earth is much older
They further argue that falsiability cannot distinguish
than adherents believe. Confronting such evidence, some
between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical
adherents make an argument (called the Omphalos hypredictions that are sometimes incorrect.
pothesis) that the world was created with the appearance
David Miller, a contemporary philosopher of critical ra- of age: i.e. the sudden appearance of a mature chicken
tionalism, has attempted to defend Popper against these capable of laying eggs. This hypothesis is non-falsiable
claims.[16] Miller argues that astrology does not lay itself since no evidence about the age of the earth (or any astroopen to falsication, while astronomy does, and this is the nomical feature) can be shown not to be fabricated during
litmus test for science.
creation.

Examples

Theories of history or politics that allegedly predict fuClaims about veriability and falsiability have been used
ture events have a logical form that renders them neither
to criticize various controversial views. Examining these
falsiable nor veriable. They claim that for every historexamples shows the usefulness of falsiability by showing
ically signicant event, there exists an historical or ecous where to look when attempting to criticise a theory.
nomic law that determines the way in which events proceeded. Failure to identify the law does not mean that it
does not exist, yet an event that satises the law does not
6.1 Economics
prove the general case. Evaluation of such claims is at
best dicult. On this basis, Popper fundamentally critKarl Popper argued that Marxism shifted from falsiable icized historicism in the sense of any preordained preto unfalsiable.[17]
diction of history,[28] and argued that neither Marxism
Some economists, such as those of the Austrian School, nor psychoanalysis was science,[28] although both made
believe that macroeconomics is empirically unfalsiable such claims. Again, this does not mean that any of these

9 NOTES

types of theories is necessarily incorrect. Popper considered falsiability a test of whether theories are scientic,
not of whether propositions that they contain or support
are true.

6.5

Mathematics

Contingency
Defeasible reasoning
Demarcation problem
DuhemQuine thesis
Experimentum crucis

Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsiable, and thus not a science according to
the denition of Karl Popper.[29] However, in the 1930s
Gdels incompleteness theorems proved that there does
not exist a set of axioms for mathematics which is both
complete and consistent. Karl Popper concluded that
most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and
biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences
whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even
recently.[30] Other thinkers, notably Imre Lakatos, have
applied a version of falsicationism to mathematics itself.

Fallibilism

Like all formal sciences, mathematics is not concerned

with the validity of theories based on observations in the
empirical world, but rather, mathematics is occupied with
the theoretical, abstract study of such topics as quantity,
structure, space and change. Methods of the mathematical sciences are, however, applied in constructing and
testing scientic models dealing with observable reality.
Albert Einstein wrote, One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its
laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those
of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered
facts.[31]

Methodological solipsism

See also: Mathematical proof, Scientic method and

mathematics, Mathematics as science and Poppers two
senses theory

Predictive power

Fallacy (informal logic and rhetoric)

False (logic)
Hypothetico-deductive model
Inquiry
Logical positivism
Metaphysical solipsism

Not even wrong

Occams razor
Philosophy of mathematics
Philosophy of science
Positivism
Pragmatic maxim
Precambrian rabbit

Reproducibility
Scientic method
Superseded scientic theory

Quotations
Albert Einstein is reported to have said: No
amount of experimentation can ever prove me
right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
(paraphrased)[32][33][34]
The criterion of the scientic status of a theory is
its falsiability, or refutability, or testability.
Karl Popper, (Popper, Conjectures and Refutations,
36)[35]

See also

Tautology
Testability
Theory-ladenness

9 Notes
[1] Popper, K. R. (1994). Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsiability]". In Seiert, H.;
Radnitzky, G. Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie (in
German). Mnchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. pp.
8285. ISBN 3-423-04586-8.
[2] LScD p. 4

Closed circle

[3] LScD, p. 16

Cognitive bias

[4] Keuth: The philosophy of Karl Popper, p. 45

[5] Quantum theory and the schism in physics, introductory

comments

[22] Wallis, C (2005-08-07). The Evolution Wars. Time

Magazine. p. 32. Retrieved 2007-03-24.

[6] Popper, Karl (2005). The Logic of Scientic Discovery

(Taylor & Francis e-Library ed.). London and New York:
Routledge / Taylor & Francis e-Library. pp. 4750.
ISBN 0203994620.

[23] Dawkins, Richard (1995). River Out of Eden. Basic

Books. ISBN 0-465-06990-8.

[7] Thomas, Georey. Magic, Science, and Religion. http:

//www.bbk.ac.uk. Retrieved 25 March 2015. External
link in |website= (help)
[8] Logic of Scientic Discovery, section 6, footnote *3
[9] Ruse, Michael. Science and Spirituality : Making Room
for Faith in the Age of Science. ;New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010. Print.

[24] Dawkins, Richard (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. W. W.

Norton & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-393-31570-3.
[25] Lannes, Sophie; Alain, Boyer (1982-02-26). Les
chemins de la verite: L'Express va plus loin avec Karl Popper. L'Express.; online German translation Die Wege
der Wahrheit. Zum Tode von Karl Popper. Aufklrung
und Kritik. February 1994. p. 38.
[26] Popper, K (1985). Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Open Court. ISBN 0-08-758343-7.

[10] McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Decision January 5, 1982.

[27] Popper, K (1978). Natural selection and the emergence

of mind. Dialectica (32): 339355.

[11] W. W. Bartley, III: Biology & evolutionary epistemology. Philosophia 6:34 (SeptemberDecember 1976),
pp. 463494

[28] Burton, Dawn (2000). Research training for social scientists: a handbook for postgraduate researchers. SAGE. pp.
1213. ISBN 0-7619-6351-0., Chapter 1, p. 12

[12] Rafe Champion: Agreeing to Disagree: Bartleys Critique of Reason. Melbourne Age Monthly Review (October
1985)

[29] Shasha, Dennis Elliot; Lazere, Cathy A. (1998). Out of

Their Minds: The Lives and Discoveries of 15 Great Computer Scientists. Springer. p. 228.

[13] David Miller: Some hard questions for critical rationalism

[30] Popper 1995, p. 56

[14] Martin Gardner (2001), A Skeptical Look at Karl Popper, Skeptical Inquirer, 25(4): 13-14, 72.

[31] Albert Einstein (1923). Geometry and Experience.

Sidelights on relativity. Courier Dover Publications. p. 27.
Reprinted by Dover (2010), ISBN 978-0-486-24511-9.

[15] Lakatos, Imre (1978). The methodology of scientic research programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-28031
1.
[16] Miller, David (2000). Sokal and Bricmont: Back to the
Frying Pan (PDF). Pli 9: 15673., also chapter 6 of
Miller, David (2006). Out of Error. Ashgate.
[17]

For Marxism, Popper believed, had been

initially scientic, in that Marx had postulated a theory which was genuinely predictive. However, when these predictions were
not in fact borne out, the theory was saved
from falsication by the addition of ad hoc
hypotheses which made it compatible with
the facts. By this means, Popper asserted, a
theory which was initially genuinely scientic
degenerated into pseudo-scientic dogma.
Karl Popper at the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.

[18] Austrian School of Economics: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty
[19] Methodological Individualism at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[20] Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, p. 11, r. Purposeful
Action and Animal Reaction. Referenced 2011-11-23.
[21] Ridley, M (2003). Evolution, Third Edition. Blackwell
Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-4051-0345-0.

[32] Calaprice, Alice (2005). The New Quotable Einstein.

USA: Princeton University Press and Hebrew University
of Jerusalem. p. 291. ISBN 0-691-12074-9.Calaprice
denotes this not as an exact quotation, but as a paraphrase
of a translation of A. Einsteins Induction and Deduction. Collected Papers of Albert Einstein Vol. 7, Document 28. The Berlin Years: Writings, 19181921. A.
Einstein; M. Janssen, R. Schulmann, et al., eds.
[33] Wynn, Charles M.; Wiggins, Arthur W.; Harris, Sidney
(1997). The Five Biggest Ideas in Science. John Wiley and
Sons. p. 107. ISBN 0-471-13812-6.
[34] Newton, Lynn D. (2000). Meeting the standards in primary science: a guide to the ITT NC. Routledge. p. 21.
ISBN 0-7507-0991-X., Chapter , p. 21
[35] http://cla.calpoly.edu/~{}fotoole/321.1/popper.html

10 References
Angeles, Peter A. (1992), Harper Collins Dictionary
of Philosophy, 2nd edition, Harper Perennial, New
York, NY. ISBN 0-06-461026-8.
Feyerabend, Paul K., Against Method: Outline of
an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, Humanities
Press, London, UK, 1975. Reprinted, Verso, London, UK, 1978.

11
Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientic Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
1962. 2nd edition 1970. 3rd edition 1996.
Lakatos, Imre. (1970), Falsication and the
Methodology of Scientic Research Programmes,
in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, vol. 4.
Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lakatos, Imre (1978), The methodology of scientic
research programmes: Philosophical papers, volume
I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0-521-28031 1.
Peirce, C.S., Lectures on Pragmatism, Cambridge, MA, March 26 May 17, 1903. Reprinted
in part, Collected Papers, CP 5.14212. Published
in full with editors introduction and commentary,
Patricia Ann Turisi (ed.), Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism, State University of
New York Press, Albany, NY, 1997. Reprinted, pp.
133241, Peirce Edition Project (eds.), The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings, Volume 2
(18931913), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, 1998.
Popper, Karl, The Logic of Scientic Discovery, Basic Books, New York, NY, 1959.
Popper, Karl, Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge, London, 1963.
Runes, Dagobert D. (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littleeld, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ,
1962.
Sokal, Alan, and Bricmont, Jean, Fashionable Nonsense, Picador, New York, NY, 1998.
Theobald, D.L. (2006).
29+ Evidences for
Macroevolution: The Scientic Case for Common
Descent. The Talk.Origins Archive. Version 2.87.
Wood, Ledger (1962), Solipsism, p. 295 in Runes
(ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littleeld, Adams,
and Company, Totowa, NJ.

11

External links

Problems with Falsicationism at The Galilean Library

EXTERNAL LINKS

12
12.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Falsiability Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability?oldid=696505892 Contributors: Damian Yerrick, AxelBoldt, The Cunctator, Lee Daniel Crocker, Mav, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Taw, Ed Poor, BenBaker, Josh Grosse, PierreAbbat, Hannes Hirzel,
GrahamN, R Lowry, ChrisSteinbach, Edward, Chas zzz brown, Erik Zachte, Kwertii, Dominus, BoNoMoJo (old), Damnedkingdom,
Karada, Ellywa, Ahoerstemeier, Jdforrester, Ireneshusband, Poor Yorick, Rossami, Susurrus, Rotem Dan, Evercat, Rl, Rob Hooft, Hieronymous, Dcoetzee, Ww, Dandrake, Cos111, Gutza, Rednblu, IceKarma, Markhurd, Dogface, AaronSw, Raul654, AnonMoos, Chris
Rodgers, Banno, Lumos3, Robbot, Zandperl, Altenmann, Greudin, Modulatum, AceMyth, Cyrius, Pengo, SpellBott, Adam78, Ancheta
Wis, Matthew Stannard, Zuytdorp Survivor, Fastssion, Binadot, Bnn, Rj, Everyking, Lussmu~enwiki, FeloniousMonk, Kadzuwo~enwiki,
Leonard G., Duncharris, Jorge Stol, Mboverload, Taak, ArinArin, Costyn, Jrdioko, Neilc, Calm, Antandrus, Beland, MarkSweep, Piotrus,
Dunks58, Karol Langner, DeepNorth, JimWae, Lucidish, Zowie, R, NightMonkey, Freakofnurture, Spiy sperry, Discospinster, Guanabot, Vsmith, Dave souza, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, Antaeus Feldspar, Bender235, El C, Kelly Ramsey, Carlon, Lankiveil, Skeppy, JRM,
Rbj, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc, Urthogie, La goutte de pluie, Sasquatch, Flammifer, Eharney, Knucmo2, Jumbuck, Orzetto, ThePedanticPrick, CyberSkull, SlimVirgin, !melquiades, Mysdaao, Branlory, Caesura, Noosphere, Ltbarcly, Suruena, RainbowOfLight, Guthrie,
BDD, Kenyon, Natalya, Feezo, Simetrical, Mindmatrix, LupSubBrad~enwiki, Kzollman, Pol098, The Wordsmith, Je3000, Iamblessed,
Fred J, Bkwillwm, L., Wgmleslie, Mandarax, G.hartig, Ashmoo, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Rogerd, Tangotango, Bubba73, Reinis, Maxim Razin,
Exeunt, FlaBot, Ian Pitchford, ReSearcher, SteveBaker, Spencerk, Chobot, DVdm, Stoive, Volunteer Marek, JPD, Bi, YurikBot, Wavelength, Personman, Hairy Dude, NTBot~enwiki, Garsanllean, Fabartus, Archelon, Gaius Cornelius, Thane, Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki,
Fabulous Creature, Mccready, Irishguy, Brian Crawford, Bengalski, Bota47, Tomisti, Jmchen, 2over0, Grmagne, CWenger, Shawnc,
Palthrow, Georey.landis, Jsnx, SmackBot, Rtc, ElectricRay, McGeddon, Pgk, Grye, Lawrencekhoo, Pokipsy76, Kmarinas86, Chris
the speller, Tisthammerw, Silly rabbit, Ronewolf, Efrankenberger, Fmalan, Mikker, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Chcknwnm, Wen D
House, Richard001, Derek R Bullamore, BullRangifer, Jon Awbrey, John.Conway, MilesVorkosigan, Kukini, Swatjester, Axem Titanium,
Khazar, MagnaMopus, Ulner, JoshuaZ, KarlM, Mgiganteus1, Grumpyyoungman01, Dr.K., Jlambert, Levineps, K, CzarB, Dreftymac,
Skapur, Wfructose, George100, Xcentaur, 5-HT8, Ian Goddard, Thomasmeeks, Neelix, Myasuda, Gregbard, Theo Clark, TheRegicider,
Cydebot, Ntsimp, DCAnderson, Peterdjones, FastLizard4, Landroo, Thijs!bot, Rockymountains, 271828182, Keraunos, Master Spiky,
Second Quantization, Aericanwizard, Gioto, Fmanjoo, JAnDbot, MER-C, Skomorokh, Unused0029, Ling.Nut, PelleSmith, LookingGlass,
THobern, Halogenated, Huadpe, Davercox, Warchef, Tercer, TechnoFaye, N4nojohn, Hans Dunkelberg, Maurice Carbonaro, Ian.thomson,
Phatius McBlu, Thoughtcriminall, Antip8ri8, Sjforman, BernardZ, Xnuala, Meiskam, Chaos5023, Rmkeller, Director, Red red krovvy,
Ldonna, The Original Wildbear, Paulburnett, The Tetrast, Gekritzl, Ronar~enwiki, Noformation, Kenshin, Poltair, Deconstructhis, OMCV,
Alexsmail, Mimihitam, Abraitberg, Harry the Dirty Dog, Sunrise, Nusumareta, Firey322, Martarius, ClueBot, SummerWithMorons,
Binksternet, WurmWoode, Gorillasapiens, Drmies, Rabbitslayer21, William Ortiz, Excirial, Jacques.boudreau, AC+79 3888, Johnuniq,
DumZiBoT, Fastily, Nathan Johnson, Pfhorrest, Aunt Entropy, DOI bot, CColombo, Deamon138, Jackmaturin, AgadaUrbanit, Faunas,
Jarble, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Yorsubs, Armchair info guy, AnomieBOT, Nutriveg, Mauro Lanari, Rubinbot, Citation bot, LilHelpa,
Gypsydave5, YAG490, Xqbot, Jburlinson, J JMesserly, Omnipaedista, RibotBOT, SassoBot, Shubinator, Neil Clancy, Constructive editor, Paine Ellsworth, D'ohBot, Aparthia, Citation bot 1, Aldy, Dialegomai, DrilBot, Pinethicket, Gu se, Pastafarian32, Jandalhandler,
TobeBot, Trappist the monk, Philocentric, Lotje, RjwilmsiBot, Tesseract2, EmausBot, Solomonfromnland, JSquish, Travis DeVries, Dylan k, Staszek Lem, Ego White Tray, Ed Dadoo, FurrySings, Allosaurus1, Terra Novus, Xanchester, ClueBot NG, Koornti, Loew Galitz,
Helpful Pixie Bot, Jeraphine Gryphon, BG19bot, Bart simpson rules, Kedwa30, MrBill3, VagrantParadox, BattyBot, ChrisGualtieri, Saedon, Webclient101, Mogism, Everything Is Numbers, ZenZeddmore, Clpeter2, Rathkirani, AnotherPseudonym, Retroman000, DarnVisages, Occurring, Chharliie, Zuzie3, Jgbecker, JacobSmiley, SocraticOath, Jerodlycett, KasparBot, Mckburton, Anthonygianni, Balyynt and
Anonymous: 331

12.2

Images

File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
File:Black_Swans.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Black_Swans.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Public
domain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk contribs),
based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

12.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0