Mar 8, 2020, 1:57 PM
—“Greetings, I’d like to know the extent to which propertarianism depends on falsificationism(understood as a concept in the philosophy of science) and as a consequence how it answers the criticisms raised against the notions since the 1950s, notably by Quine in “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. Quote illustrating part of the argument:
A physicist decides to demonstrate the inaccuracy of a proposition; in order to deduce from this proposition the prediction of a phenomenon and institute the experiment which is to show whether this phenomenon is or is not produced, in order to interpret the results of this experiment and establish that the predicted phenomenon is not produced, he does not confine himself to making use of the proposition in question; he makes use also of a whole group of theories accepted by him as beyond dispute. The prediction of the phenomenon, whose nonproduction is to cut off debate, does not derive from the proposition challenged if taken by itself, but from the proposition at issue joined to that whole group of theories; if the predicted phenomenon is not produced, the only thing the experiment teaches us is that among the propositions used to predict the phenomenon and to establish whether it would be produced, there is at least one error; but where this error lies is just what it does not tell us. ([1914] 1954, 185)”—
We would need an example since there is nothing in the above example that is testable. It’s a thought experiment that depends upon contingencies that are themselves dependent upon deductions and presumptions that cannot be tested. In geometry his argument might stand. In physics it’s unlikely to stand.
I think you are referring to underdetermination in the scientific method, which makes no sense.
The scientific method serves only to tell us whether the speaker has the knowledge to make a truth claim.
There is no via-positiva scientific method, only warranty of due diligence that one is testifying to observables, whether physical, logical, or experiential.
That was the net result of the 20th century attempt at it.
P completes that method in that it solves the problems of psychology and sociology, economics and politics.
When we are talking about physics, we are currently at a physical testing limit given the costs of tests. In that sense, very little is testifiable. All we are doing is a lot of mathy trial and error.