In this blog post, I will examine perspectives on scientific truth and falsificationism, focusing on Karl Popper’s ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, and share my personal thoughts on the subject.
Throughout the long history of the philosophy of science, questions regarding what truth is, how it can be explored or acquired, and whether eternal truths exist have been major research topics that philosophers have consistently explored. In Marxist philosophy—one of the major schools of thought—Marx’s materialist conception of history and his theories of productive forces and relations of production have had a significant impact on social development. These theories suggest that no matter how brilliant a thinker or how excellent a theory may be, one must not remain confined to a single perspective. To understand the philosophy of science, I believe it is necessary to broadly examine various schools of thought; furthermore, one must constantly expand one’s mindset, values, and perspectives to choose a correct worldview and way of thinking, and act based on that foundation.
Reading Karl Popper’s ‘Conjectures and Refutations’ gave me the sense that my own horizons had broadened significantly. For example, Marx argued that society is composed of classes, but I wondered if viewing the world based solely on this theory might actually lead to a narrow understanding of it. ‘Conjectures and Refutations’ is a book that broadly presents the ideas of many great philosophers. Through this book, I also realized that to truly learn philosophy and explore truth, one must break free from fixed frameworks such as specific social classes or perspectives. Only then can we embrace the core ideas of various philosophers and understand their logic and ways of thinking. So, are all of Popper’s claims correct? Is the truth of science, as Popper describes it, the truth we should pursue? From here on, I will analyze Popper’s perspective and organize my own thoughts on truth.
Immanuel Kant said, “Our reason does not discover laws in the natural world; rather, it imposes our own laws upon the natural world.” In other words, since many of the world’s institutions and laws are created by humans, they are essentially artificial constructs, and if humans change, these too can change. To put it another way, our knowledge is constructed by human thought. Although we live in the material world, we cannot prove that our perceptions fully correspond to nature itself. We can only identify and correct inaccuracies in existing laws. This is precisely where Popper’s perspective comes into play.
So, do we really need all of this consciousness? Even today, wars, terrorism, the threat of nuclear weapons, and various forms of discrimination and conflict continue to occur ceaselessly around the world. Many of these problems are further exacerbated by the misuse of human knowledge and technology. Human consciousness is both astonishingly great and extremely dangerous. Knowledge is a vital driving force behind the advancement of civilization, but at the same time, those who possess that knowledge can use it to destroy the world based on their own beliefs and interests. Of course, humans live by applying their own rules to nature, but we need to reconsider whether nature actually accepts and adapts to human rules as they are.
Popper criticized positivism, which is based on inductive reasoning and observation, arguing that “scientific theories are, by their very nature, bold conjectures; while such theories cannot be verified, they can be criticized and falsified.” In other words, scientific theories are not simply derived inductively through the accumulation of observations and experiences, but are proposed through bold conjectures. Such conjectures cannot be fully proven. This is because, while we can confirm that a theory is correct under specific conditions or in specific environments, it is practically impossible to prove that the theory is always correct under all conditions and in all situations. This is a prime example illustrating the limitations of induction. For instance, consider the proposition, “All crows in the world are black.” No matter how many black crows we observe, we cannot completely prove that all crows in the world are black. This is because we cannot completely rule out the possibility that a white crow—one we have not yet observed—might exist. Therefore, it can be argued that inductive reasoning, which seeks to establish general laws through observation, is logically incapable of proving absolute truth.
Furthermore, Popper argued that humans propose new hypotheses through bold conjectures, and that the speculative thinking of philosophers is the very starting point for such proposals. These proposals generally cannot be substantiated by empirical evidence alone. In ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, Popper explained that scientific theories are not derived solely from induction, analysis, observation, and experimentation, but develop through bold conjectures and imagination in the context of specific problems. Even if a scientific theory formed in this way solves a particular problem, it cannot be said to be an absolute theory that applies in all situations at all times. For this reason, Popper believed that the truth of scientific theories cannot be established through induction alone.
I believe that while induction is not a perfect method, it is an essential process for formulating hypotheses. Although hypotheses established through induction may be incorrect, we can discover certain rules of the world through induction. Based on these rules, we can gain insight, and it becomes easier to formulate bolder hypotheses. Every scientific theory has its own role and value, and they are closely interconnected. Therefore, completely ruling out a single theory could actually hinder scientific progress. To advance science and draw closer to scientific truth, we must consider a variety of scientific theories together. Rather than unconditionally rejecting a single theory, I believe it is preferable to build upon existing theories to further develop them.
According to Popper, when examining a scientific hypothesis, we should critique it through falsification rather than attempting to prove it. In other words, the key is to verify whether the hypothesis we have proposed is false. If a hypothesis is found to be false, it has been falsified. Conversely, if it has not yet been proven false, we must continue our efforts to falsify that hypothesis. Popper also criticized logical positivism. From his perspective, verification alone cannot determine whether a hypothesis is true. The reason for this is the same as the nature of conjecture explained earlier. As mentioned in the preface to ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, science is a collection of hypotheses constantly generated by human reason, and these hypotheses evolve through continuous criticism and falsification.
What we can learn from Popper’s falsificationism is that he believed there is no such thing as eternal truth. He thought that all truths are meaningful only within specific temporal and spatial conditions. From the perspective of scientific progress, there are no absolute or eternal truths, and each theory can be seen as valid only within a certain scope. Whether in the natural or social sciences, all theories are established within specific historical and social contexts and can be replaced by new theories as times change. All such theories are ultimately verified and evaluated over time. This is precisely the core of Popper’s falsificationism.
However, as Popper argued, falsification requires a considerable amount of time. If so, might we be investing too much time in falsifying a single theory? While Popper believed that a theory’s reliability increases only through falsification, today’s society is changing much more rapidly than it did during Popper’s lifetime. In an era where new technologies and knowledge are constantly emerging, one might wonder how human progress could possibly occur if we spent all our time merely falsifying every scientific theory one by one. Nevertheless, I agree with Popper’s view that there is no such thing as eternal truth. If only truths that never change existed, there would be no reason for new theories to emerge or for science to advance. I believe science can continue to advance precisely because new theories emerge through falsification, allowing us to discover new laws of the world.
Through ‘Conjectures and Refutations’, we can also gain insight into Popper’s view of truth. Popper argued that a theory can be true even if no one believes it, and conversely, a theory widely believed and followed by many can still be false. Furthermore, he rejected the idea that objective truth can be fully known through science, likening truth to a mountain peak shrouded in clouds. In other words, while truth clearly exists, humans can never fully and permanently verify it in its complete form. Popper explained this with two reasons. First, scientific theories are, after all, merely conjectures. Second, subjective human elements inevitably intervene in scientific knowledge. Therefore, he believed that humans cannot fully comprehend the truth.
However, Popper argued that scientific research can continue its search for truth and may even gradually draw closer to it. This is because he viewed science as progressively approaching objective truth through a process in which new theories continuously replace existing ones. To explain this perspective, Popper introduced the concept of “verisimilitude.”
Verisimilitude is a concept that indicates how close a theory has come to objective truth. Accordingly, the degree to which a theory has approached the truth is referred to as “verisimilitude.” Popper argued that while no theory can be an absolute truth, this does not mean that all theories are entirely devoid of truth. A theory that has undergone empirical scrutiny can be considered to contain a certain amount of truth. However, as we have seen earlier, every theory is ultimately subject to falsification, and in that process, false elements are also revealed. Therefore, we can understand that every scientific theory contains both elements of truth and elements of error.
I believe these scientific theories can be likened to the concept of limits in mathematics. Just as a function can transition into another function as it approaches a limit, a scientific theory is replaced by a superior new theory when it reaches the limits of its development. That is why continuous research is essential. As Popper argued, we can develop new theories by attempting to falsify existing ones through research. However, there may also be cases where researchers devote their entire lives to falsification research only to die without ever discovering a falsification. In that case, an excessive focus on falsification alone may be inefficient. Therefore, rather than treating falsification as the sole method, I believe it is more efficient to utilize a variety of approaches together, such as discovering patterns or deriving new hypotheses.
According to Popper, the structure of science is not built through induction and verification but is formed on the basis of conjecture and refutation. Thanks to this distinction, we can gain a wider range of insights and knowledge. In other words, Popper’s philosophical system can also be seen as originating from this fundamental perspective. Unlike traditional epistemological systems, Popper believed that continuous falsification and verification were necessary, based on actual observations, conjectures, and theories. Therefore, he argued that no theoretical system can be called an absolute truth, and that all theories are merely those that have not yet been falsified. Furthermore, he viewed the process of constantly critiquing and refining even established theories as an essential element for the advancement of science.
I believe that even knowledge which people today accept as self-evident truth should not be accepted as absolute authority; rather, it is important to maintain an attitude of continuously reviewing and attempting to falsify it through scientific methods. As Popper said, this bold process of falsification is the very path that brings us closer to the truth. Of course, confirmation also holds significant meaning, but it is not sufficient on its own. On the other hand, induction has significance from another perspective. This is because through induction, we can discover patterns and use them as a basis for constructing new theories. Therefore, I believe that falsificationism does not negate induction but rather serves as a method to further reinforce the reliability and validity of scientific theories.
Looking back at history, there are many instances in human society where verification must occur more quickly than falsification. However, when examining history and society, we need to at least reexamine existing historical perspectives or ways of thinking at least once. This is because even important ideas and theories that have greatly influenced our lives may contain errors or blind spots. Just as failing to make a single move carefully in Go can lead to losing the entire game, we must always reflect on ourselves and society and constantly examine our own actions. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge one’s own mistakes, accept others’ criticism with an open mind, and maintain an attitude of seeking improvement. I believe this attitude is a precious virtue that all humans should possess.
As stated in ‘Conjecture and Refutation’, the ultimate role of science lies in the pursuit of truth. However, humans cannot fully attain absolute truth, and even if we believe we have attained it, we cannot be certain that it is the true truth. The point I wish to emphasize here is that truth is not the sole goal of science. What we need is not merely abstract, pure truth, but truth that holds meaning for human life and problem-solving. In the natural sciences, what we pursue is truth that possesses high explanatory power and persuasiveness, as well as theories that are logically more sound. Ultimately, truth alone is not enough. What we must truly pursue are solutions capable of resolving real-world problems. I believe that truth is not an absolute, finished product, but rather a goal toward which we must continually explore, revise, and move in a better direction.
Throughout the long history of the philosophy of science, truth has been understood as a process of constant revision and verification. Karl Popper’s falsificationism also presented an important philosophical perspective on science from this viewpoint. In contemporary philosophy of science, various theories are discussed alongside Popper’s falsificationism, including Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm theory, Imre Lakatos’s research program theory, and Paul Feyerabend’s methodological pluralism. However, the core principle emphasized by Popper—that “science progresses through criticism and falsification”—still holds significant meaning in contemporary philosophy of science.
Science is not a discipline that proclaims absolute truth, but rather a process of presenting the most plausible explanations to date and continuously revising them. Therefore, no theory should be deemed an absolute truth; the possibility of revision must always remain open in light of new evidence and logic. This attitude holds significant meaning not only in science but also in our perspectives on society and humanity.
I do not fully agree with Popper’s argument. I believe that induction and positivism also play important roles in the advancement of science, and that it is difficult to explain all scientific discoveries through falsificationism alone. In fact, modern science employs a variety of methods, including observation, experimentation, statistical analysis, computer simulations, and mathematical modeling. New theories often develop as induction and deduction, conjecture and falsification, complement one another. Therefore, rather than treating a single method as an absolute standard, comprehensively utilizing multiple approaches will be more beneficial to the advancement of science.
Furthermore, since science is a human endeavor, it cannot be completely detached from the influence of its social and cultural environment. Research directions and interpretations may vary depending on a researcher’s values, the historical context, and the level of technology available; I believe these factors are also part of the process of scientific development. For this reason, science must enhance its objectivity through constant criticism and debate, and an attitude of respecting differing perspectives is also necessary.
The most significant insight I gained from reading ‘Conjecture and Refutation’ is that what matters most in science is not stubbornly clinging to one’s own claims, but rather an attitude that acknowledges the possibility that one’s theory might be wrong. I believe that the driving force behind scientific progress is a mindset that is not afraid of having one’s ideas criticized and is willing to revise existing ideas when new evidence is presented.
Ultimately, truth is not a single, finished result but a process of constantly approaching it. While humans may never reach absolute truth, we can gradually draw closer to it through continuous inquiry, criticism, and new discoveries. I believe this process itself is the essence of science and the core value that Popper sought to convey.
What I realized once again through this essay is that truth is never fixed. Truth is continually revised and developed in response to the times, circumstances, and new evidence. Therefore, rather than accepting our existing knowledge as absolute, we must adopt an attitude of constantly questioning, reviewing, and seeking better explanations. I believe this attitude is the most important driving force behind the advancement of science and the further development of human society.
