Question

Karl Popper famously said that falsifiability is the distinguishing criterion of science. However, what about statements that are not falsifiable, but verifiable, that is, there is an observation or potential observation that can verify the statement as true. For example, the statement Zebras exist is not falsifiable, but it is verifiable, because an observation of zebras can verify the statement as true. So, was Karl Popper wrong in saying that falsifiability of a statement is what distinguishes science from non-science? Maybe the real distinguishing criterion is the disjunction of falsifiability with verifiability? Or have I simply misunderstood what falsifiable means?

Answer 1

Karl Popper argued that falsifiability is the distinguishing criterion of science. However, verifiable statements can still be considered scientific even if they are not falsifiable. Popper's emphasis on falsifiability is a useful guideline, but not the only criteria for scientific statements.

Step-by-step explanation:

Karl Popper argued that falsifiability is the distinguishing criterion of science. However, the distinction between falsifiability and verifiability is important when considering the scientific status of a statement.

While falsifiability refers to the potential for a statement to be proven false through observation, verifiability refers to the possibility of verifying a statement as true through observation.

So, statements that are verifiable but not falsifiable can still be considered scientific because they are based on empirical evidence.

Popper's emphasis on falsifiability can be seen as a useful guideline, but it does not necessarily mean that verifiable statements are not scientific.