Introduction
Reality or fantasy? Virtual reality? What is the reality? Does it not exist? Did I do what I had to do? In this false, false reality, falsificationism, arises in 1935, by a Jew, who when Hitler's black era begins in Europe, travels to Finland, one of the visionary men, philosophers, who flesh out reality, in pieces and express it, I do not know if it exists, although I see the starry night, they are only flashes of centuries of light in the universe, scattered energy, that some black hole in the distant horizon has not yet been swallowed, so far away that I cannot perceive well, because I am a Virtual worm in a parallel universe, of myself, because I do not know who I am, or who I am, amid the suffocating dust of frozen indifference and silent silence of a world, in motion, that is dying, but refuting that reality, it lives intensely.And that's where my universe crashes. In one that expands at every moment, without being able to fully understand it.
KARL POPPER
The falsificationism (1902-1994)
For Popper, it would be enough to rigorously delimit the field of science itself, without it being necessary to deny the effectiveness of other discourses in areas other than science.
He also directed his criticism towards the verificationism maintained by the members of the Circle, and defended that science operated by falsification, and not by induction. This is, strictly speaking, impossible, since all the cases that would be governed by scientific law could never be verified. The basis of the empirical control of science is the possibility of falsifying the hypotheses, in an open process that would tend to lead to scientific truth.
Popper developed this principle in The Logic of Scientific Research (1934), where he also established a criterion to clearly delineate science from other discourses: for a hypothesis to be scientific it is necessary that observable statements emerge from it and, therefore, falsifiable, so that if they are not verified, the hypothesis can be refuted.
Falsificationism
A theory designed in such a way as to reject the possibility of not explaining is a faulty theory. Popper was not that Marx's original ideas (they hold that all societies advance through the dialectic of class struggle.) Had this flaw, but that the type of defense used by Marxists who inherited Marx's ideas introduced this defect in the most popular version of Marxism.
For example, the following statement includes the type of defect indicated by Popper: "It is certain that it is raining or not raining today." Is there an event (related to rain) that this statement does not address? If it rains, the statement is true; If it doesn't rain, it is too. For Popper, however, this kind of certainty is worth little because he faces no challenges. It doesn't matter whether the water falls outside or not; the statement will still stand, but only as a bunch of words that won't hone my knowledge of the world.
Popper summarized his way of thinking about the concept falsificationism. The idea is like this: a statement is falsifiable if it is possible (even if only in theory) to design an experiment such that one of the potential results of that experiment is that the statement is false. Take a deep breath and read the previous sentence again. Once again? OK, that's it, let's move on. The idea is not complex, but it is confusing, perhaps because of the similarity between the words, with the idea of falsehood. Is a falsifiable idea false? Not necessarily. The key point is that it can be. A non-falsifiable idea is never false, but it does not tell us anything about the world, and so it is a poor assertion to say that it is true. Let's see it in a table with an example:
The third statement, in the bottom row, was made by Tom DeLay, House Majority Leader for the Republican Party in the Congress of the United States of America, in a statement to USA Today on October 6, 2003. What experiment is possible to do whose result contradicts your claim? Whether or not weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, such a claim stands unscathed. A completely different question is whether such a statement tells us anything about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or does it just reflect a wishful thinking of a certain reality.
This last theme is central to Popper's ideas. According to what he called the " Demarcation Criterion ", science is built on falsifiable claims. Non-falsifiable claims, like Tom DeLay's, give rise to pseudosciences and do not allow us to learn anything about the world. The practices that we recognize today as pseudosciences (astrology, dowsing, etc.) are supported by non-falsifiable claims, and are often held by people who prefer to maintain an altered view of the world for various reasons. But this does not have to be like this. Astrology is not necessarily a pseudoscience, and neither does politics have to be! The character of pseudoscience is not given by the subject but by the statements on the basis of which its study is built.
According to Popper's ideas, what can we say we know about the world? Unlike verificationism, which posited that science was an accumulation of truths, falsificationism posits that science is an accumulation of falsifiable assertions that, to date, have not been proven false. Falsificationism warns that a theory as good as the Theory of Relativity, which is falsifiable, can be demolished at any moment if we do an experiment that proves it false. The best scientific theories are those that have resisted the most attempts to prove them false.
conclusion
In my opinion copper, a genius in science and philosophy, who always has the benefit of the doubt, in all theory, trying to refute it, in a pure rationalism, as Emanuel Kant tells us, in his ethics of pure reason, who from Germany, continues his philosophical thinking, in this reality overflowing with violence, as the human being is desperate to become cosmic dust, beyond his minimum awareness of what the universe really is, destroying everything, what is puts it in front, as if it is not his reality, it kills him and with it he bears the stamp of his own miserable extermination, regardless of whether it is his own reality and that of the next generations, in essence he wants to tell us copper, that there are not always realities absolute,but those that are always being transformed and for that reason their own description of each moment in time of each instant of relative truth is always questionable, with minimal flashes of knowledge of what is happening in a vast universe, indescribable, for many, for the most indifferent, just vast wake up and kill, wake up and destroy, wake up, and build a few. Anyway, thank you copper for allowing me to question whether I live and die every moment of this relative time in a universe and I write these few lines that perhaps nobody cares about, only me and a few that are required to read, thank you, for the great teaching, which only leaves us, to be more humble every day and tirelessly search with a dry mouth, the wisdom of all living and dead universes.
Reference source:
1. www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/p/popper.html
2. Karl Popper and Falsehood, Eduardo Unda Sanzana.
3. What is thing called science ?, by AF Chalmers.
4. An introduction to philosophical analysis, John Hospers.
