A Taxonomy of Major Premises and Implications for Falsification and Verification

Abstract

ABSTRACT Both naïve and sophisticated falsification arguments depend upon using the logic of modus tollens to employ empirical defeats to conclude that the theory is not true (naïve falsification) or that the conjunction of theory and auxiliary assumptions is not true (sophisticated falsification). However, both types of modus tollens syllogisms depend strongly on the precise form of the major premise. The present goal is to introduce a taxonomy of four types of major premises: positive frame, negative frame, positive-negative frame, and negative-positive frame. For two frames, falsification really is logically superior to verification, but for two other frames, verification is logically superior to falsification. Thus, there is no overall logical basis for preferring falsification to verification or for preferring verification to falsification. Nor are there convincing arguments from Bayesian statistical, frequentist statistical, or empirical standpoints. Thus, the attraction of falsification, whether naïve or sophisticated, comes down, in the end, to something other than an objective philosophical account.