[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-153224-105":59,"doc-detail-153224-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","tour-ii-falsification-pseudoscience-induction","Tour II - Falsification, Pseudoscience, Induction","","Tour II examines Karl Popper’s approach to falsification and its impact on how science is distinguished from pseudoscience. It connects Popperian severity testing with significance tests and highlights controversies over how researchers use statistical methods. The discussion covers four linked themes: science versus pseudoscience, conjecture and refutation, the idea that observations require methods and checks, and corroboration versus confirmation under severe attempts to refute. The chapter also frames these issues within contemporary statistical crises and debates about replication.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/tour-ii-falsification-pseudoscience-induction/153224/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/tour-ii-falsification-pseudoscience-induction/153224.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Aurelia","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-08-27",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"How does Popper propose separating science from pseudoscience?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Popper’s demarcation focuses on whether theories are testable and falsifiable. Severely tested hypotheses are those that survive stringent attempts at falsification.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What is the controversy regarding Popperian falsification and significance tests?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Some critics argue that significance tests are often used in ways that are non-Popperian. The text contrasts Popperian appeals with views that significance testing can operate differently.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Why does the chapter emphasize “observations are not given”?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Popper rejects the empiricist assumption that observations are straightforwardly known. Observational claims count as “observable” only through methods that enable stringent validity checks.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},153224,1787872616,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},1099514068365,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/10000253d8d9f28188e?_k=1776742907772140068","C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/14075547/WORKINGFOLDER/MAYOS/9781107054134C04.3D  \n75 [75–116] 28 .7.2018 7:47PM  \nTour II Falsification, Pseudoscience, Induction  \nWe’ll move from the philosophical ground floor to connecting themes from other levels, from Popperian falsification to significance tests, and from Popper’s demarcation to current-day problems of pseudoscience and irreplication. An excerpt from our Museum Guide gives a broad-brush sketch of the first few sections of Tour II:  \nKarl Popper had a brilliant way to “solve” the problem of induction: Hume was right that enumerative induction is unjustified, but science is a matter of deductive falsification. Science was to be demarcated from pseudoscience according to whether its theories were testable and falsifiable. A hypothesis is deemed severely tested if it survivesa stringent attempt to falsify it. Popper’s critics denied he could sustain this and still be a deductivist ...  \nPopperian falsification is often seenasakinto Fisher’s view that “every experiment maybe said to exist only in order to give the facts a chance of disproving the null hypothesis” (1935a, p. 16). Though scientists often appeal to Popper, some critics ofsignificance tests argue that they are used in decidedly non-Popperian ways. Tour II explores this controversy.  \nWhile Popper didn’t make good on his most winning slogans, he gives us many seminal launching-off points for improved accounts of falsification, corroboration, science versus pseudoscience, and the role of novel evidence and predesignation. These will let you revisit some thorny issues in today’s statistical crisis in science.  \n2.3 Popper, Severity, and Methodological Probability  \nHere’s Popper’s summary (drawing from Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1962, p. 53):  \n• [Enumerative] induction ... is a myth. It is neither a psychological fact ... nor one of scientific procedure.  \n• The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures...  \n• Repeated observation and experiments function in science as tests of our  \nconjectures or hypotheses, i.e., as attempted refutations.  \nC:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/14075547/WORKINGFOLDER/MAYOS/9781107054134C04.3D  \n76 [75–116] 28 .7.2018 7:47PM  \n76 Excursion 2: Taboos of Induction and Falsification   \n• [It is wrongly believed that using the inductive method can] serve asa criterion of demarcation between science and pseudoscience. ... None of this is altered in the least if we say that induction makes theories only probable.  \nThere are four key, interrelated themes:  \n(1) Science and Pseudoscience. Redefining scientific method gave Popper a new basis for demarcating genuine science from questionable science or pseudoscience. Flexible theories that are easy to confirm – theories of Marx, Freud, and Adler were his exemplars – where you open your eyes and find confirmations everywhere, are low on the scientific totem pole (ibid., p. 35) . For a theory to be scientific it must be testable and falsifiable.  \n(2) Conjecture and Refutation. The problem of induction is a problem only if it depends on an unjustifiable procedure such as enumerative induction. Popper shocked everyone by denying scientists were in the habit of inductively enumerating. It doesn’t even hold up on logical grounds. To talk of “another instance of an A that is a B” assumesa conceptual classification scheme. How else do we recognize it as another item under the umbrellas A and B? (ibid., p. 44) . You can’t just observe, you need an interest, a point of view, a problem.  \nThe actual procedure for learning in science is to operate with conjectures in which we then try to find weak spots and flaws. Deductive logic is needed to draw out the remote logical consequences that we actually have a shot at testing (ibid., p. 51). From the scientist down to the amoeba, says Popper, we learn by trial and error: conjecture and refutation (ibid., p. 52) . The crucial difference is the extent to which we constructively learn how to reorient ourselves after clashes.  \nWith","cbCaiiOA1PehOEeU","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiiOA1PehOEeU","pdf",375098,41,"English","# Tour II: Falsification, Pseudoscience, Induction\n## Popper, Severity, and Methodological Probability\n## Excursion 2: Taboos of Induction and Falsification\n## Demarcation and Investigating Bad Science","[{\"question\":\"How does Popper propose separating science from pseudoscience?\",\"answer\":\"Popper’s demarcation focuses on whether theories are testable and falsifiable. Severely tested hypotheses are those that survive stringent attempts at falsification.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the controversy regarding Popperian falsification and significance tests?\",\"answer\":\"Some critics argue that significance tests are often used in ways that are non-Popperian. The text contrasts Popperian appeals with views that significance testing can operate differently.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the chapter emphasize “observations are not given”?\",\"answer\":\"Popper rejects the empiricist assumption that observations are straightforwardly known. Observational claims count as “observable” only through methods that enable stringent validity checks.\"}]","Tour II - Falsification, Pseudoscience, Induction | PDF",103]