Philosophies of Scientific Testing John Bloore hypothesis to be true, not only must the ECE department explanation make logical sense, the premises Lafayette College must also be true. These explanations must be Easton, Pennsylvania based on facts described by scientific laws and [email protected] not based on pragmatic reasons. This model is a common method used in the broader Abstract – this paper aims to explain how philosophical theory of Logical Positivism. many of the scientific testing practices and procedures stem back their philosophical 1. Logical Positivism origin. Several theories of two of the most important figures in the philosophy of science Logical Positivism is a branch of philosophy that will be explained. First the works of Carl embraces verificationism; a proposition is only Gustav Hempel and his theories about logical valid if it can be conclusively determined to be positivism will be explained. Next, the works true. According to this theory, only statements of Karl Popper and his theories about that are either logically or empirically verifiable empirical falsification will be explained. are cognitively meaningful. Finally, we will discuss modern testing For example, let us consider a hypothesis stating practices from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and how they that the scientific laws of the universe will change relate to the theories described by both after trillions of years due to major cosmic events. Hempel and Popper. Verifying the truth of this would be impossible since the sun is going to super-nova way before I. Introduction that and wipe out the human race. Therefore, Hempel would conclude that although this may or This section will describe the philosophical may not be true, this hypothesis has no cognitive theories of Carl Gustav Hempel relating to his meaning and is useless. deductive-nomological model and those from Karl Popper related to empirical falsification. According to Logical Positivisim, confirming our scientific theories does prove they are correct, II. Content rather they give us added confidence to believe A. Carl Gustav Hempel the given theory is true. Some factors that increase our confidence in a theory are: Hempel is one of the most influential people in the field of philosophy of science. He was a) Repeatability – if one can repeat an especially famous for his articulation of the experiment several times and confirm that this deductive-nomological model, a method of hypothesis is true every time, then this will determining whether certain hypothesis or claims increase our confidence that the theory is true. about scientific phenomena are justifiably true. This became the standard model of scientific b) Different testing conditions – one can explanation in the 1950’s and 60’s. increase the confidence in his theory by testing it in different environments and/or with different In Hempel’s deductive-nomological model, the conditions. explanation of facts are reduced to logical c) Scope of tests – the more ground that relationships between statements, or deductions each test covers, the more confident one can be of statements that describe the facts we want to explain. The premises in his model are the when verifying a theory. scientific laws and suitable initial conditions relating to the experiment. In order for a 1 d) Different people performing tests – the this does not mean that the theory is more people can confirm a scientific theory is instantaneously falsified. Rather, one needs to true, the more confident we can be in our theory. further test the theory to make sure that it is indeed false. Additionally, everybody should e) Other scientific principles – if there are well refrain from ad hoc maneuvers to avoid acclaimed scientific laws or principles that back contradicting the scientific theory at hand, like the current scientific claim, we can be more proposing alternative explanations that only confident that it is true. explain the current situation, or blaming B. Weaknesses of Hempel’s theory irrelevant factors in the testing environment. Although the deductive-nomological model is a 2. Critical Rationalism very popular way to evaluate if we can Popper is most famous for rejecting the most definitively state that a theory is true, it has been popular epistemic view, or the justificationist criticized by modern philosophers. One issue account of knowledge. This holds that only what with Hempel’s deductive-nomological model is can be proved/experienced should be accepted as that it allows causally irrelevant factors to be knowledge. Believing in falsificationism, Popper included in confirmation. This occurs because argues that rational explanations cannot Hempel does not place enough emphasis on the definitively prove a theory correct. Popper scope of relevant conditions to the theory at hand. believes that because scientific theories are Therefore, one may be able to falsely confirm a abstract in nature, they can only be tested theory based on factors that do not directly affect indirectly by referring to their implications. For the problem. Additionally, Hempel runs into example, the theory of gravity can only be proven problems with inductive explanation of theories. or disproven by observing objects attract to According to Hempel, we are not able to prove a heavier objects. Popper also believes that theory is true, rather we simply increase our logically, no amount of positive outcomes in an confidence that the given theory is true by testing experiment can confirm that a scientific theory is it. This is problematic because it does not allow true, however, a single counterexample is one to definitively prove that a theory is true, logically sufficient to prove a theory false. rather it is based on a high degree of probability. Therefore, a scientific theory is only falsifiable, C. Karl Popper not provable. Karl Popper is another one of the most influential 3. Problems with Popper people in the field of philosophy of science. He is The biggest problem that Popper faces is dealing famous for rejecting the use of induction when with the problem of induction. In common determining whether a scientific theory is true or practice, people hold inductive statements true. not. This view is contrary to Hempel’s theory, For example, people hold the theory of gravity and instead embraces empirical falsification. true, because every time something is in air, it 1. Empirical Falsificationism falls to the ground. The fact that during every test case the theory of gravity holds true does not Empirical falsificationism claims that a theory in prove it is true though. For all that we know, the the empirical sciences can never be proven, rather, laws of the universe might change in the it can only be falsified; therefore, every scientific upcoming years and alter the theory of gravity so theory should be heavily scrutinized. A strong that when I drop a pencil, it goes up instead of scientific theory should be impossible, or down. Additionally, nobody can prove that extremely difficult to falsify. However, many gravity holds true in every instance ever to occur scientists often claim to disprove, or falsify, because nobody will live forever to tell the tale. popular scientific theories. If the outcome of Even though everybody knows that the theory of one’s experiment contradicts the theory at hand, gravity is true, the only way to falsify it would be 2 to find a pencil that fell up due to gravity and no 1. Accuracy and precision of experiment external factors. 2. Repeatability and reproducibility 3. Range over which a test method is Popper has trouble dealing with theories that are considered based on experience, like when a drop a pencil it 4. Curve fitting will fall to the ground, or the sun will rise 5. Robustness or how insensitive the tomorrow. He attempts to escape these by experiment is to environmental variables suggesting that although we cannot logically we cannot control prove that a pencil will fall to the ground or the 6. Measurement uncertainty sun will rise tomorrow, we can postulate a theory 7. Round Robin Testing – multiple that states every day the sun will rise, or every independent people performing the same time I drop an object it will fall to the ground. If test using the same test method this fails to occur in either case, we will have falsified our theory, but until this happens, there These test method validations are almost identical is no need to reject the assumption that the theory to the confidence boosting criteria that Hempel is true. Although Popper provides a way to escape describes above. The more we can repeat an the problem of induction, he does so in a way that experiment or reproduce a result, the more weakens his theory. This work around sounds a confident we are that it is true. Performing a test lot more like Hempel’s theory than Popper’s over a broad range of values is just like evaluating because we are assuming scientific principles are the scope of the testing practice. A robust test will true based on the fact that we have not experience be able to produce the same results in different otherwise. environments and at different points in time; this relates to an increased scope of the experiment, which increases our confidence that the result is D. Modern testing practices and how they relate correct. Finally, round robin testing is identical to to Hempel and Popper. Hempel’s criteria of multiple people performing Modern scientists use test methods, such as the same test the same way. All of these factors physical tests, chemical tests, and statistical tests are confidence boosting criteria in affirming a to produce test results for what they are studying. scientific theory, according to Logical Positivism. Scientists perform many different types of tests 2.