Reply to Watkins’: Hübner on Falsification, “Grue” and Truth’
Watkins starts with a question: “Does Popper’s purely conventionalist view of basic statements render falsifications ‘practically’ meaningless?” And he answers: No, this is not the case. If e.g. a hypothesis predicts a special position of a pointer, which, according to the opinion of a group of experimenters, did not occur, then a potential falisfier of the hypothesis has been accepted and consequently its falsification is meaningful (345). But the question is: Why have these experimenters accepted the falsification? If they did it purely arbitrarily then it cannot be taken seriously; if on the other hand there are reasons for it, then, I think, there will also be some inductions among them.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.