Dogmatic (or naive) falsificationists believe the slogan, "Humans propose, nature disposes." They believe in a rigorous division between theory and observation, and that observation should be the final arbiter of a theory's fate.

Science progresses through a series of deductive *modus tollens* arguments. First, a theory is proposed. A theory can be inspired in any number of ways, not necessarily by prior observation or experiment. Next, a hypothesis, H, is derived from the theory. It must be possible to "falsify" (or contradict) the hypothesis by some observational consequence, C*. Finally, the observation or experiment is carried out to determine if C* in fact holds. If so, then the theory is rejected; if not, then the theory is "corroborated," i.e., it lives to be tested another day. Corroboration does *not* imply acceptance of a theory as true, nor as more probably true; this proposition distinguishes falsificationists from inductivists and probabilists. The logical syllogism below represents the form taken by any hypothesis test, according to dogmatic falsificationists.

IF H, THEN NOT C*.

C*.

_____________________

THEREFORE, NOT H.

For a further discussion of the application and limits of dogmatic and **methodological falsificationism**, see this experimental demonstration of **why the earth may really be flat**.

Last modified March 1998

Visited times since July 2001

**Comments?**

Home to **Metatheory**

Home to **Great Ideas in Personality**