Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor:
We read with great interest the Editorial Cover on the philosophy of science, and we enthusiastically endorse Dr. Hakan’s call for scientific rigor; however, we need to point out that Dr. Hakan’s interpretation of Karl Popper’s falsificationism is incorrect. Dr. Hakan writes [1]:
The value of a hypothesis or a theory is not in how it has been verified but how far it can resist falsification. A thesis is true only if it cannot be falsified.
Popper’s method of falsification requires exactly the opposite. It requires that a “statement or system of statements, in order to be ranked scientific, must be capable of conflicting (our emphasis) with possible, or conceivable observations” [2,3,4]. In other words, Popper claimed that a theory is scientific only when there could be theoretical or empirical circumstances under which the theory would not apply. For example, the claim that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius is a scientific statement because it can be falsified by boiling water at the top of a mountain where the boiling point will be less. This new observation made by the falsification of the original claim allows for the revision of the statement and the acquisition of new knowledge. Although Popper’s falsificationism has been questioned as to its usefulness in distinguishing science from pseudoscience, the important point is that according to Popper, the value of a scientific hypothesis or theory is in the fact that it can be falsified [2, 5].
Otherwise, as we mentioned already, we very much appreciate Dr. Hakan’s philosophical contribution and his warning against terminological ambiguity and the overinterpretation of data in our neurosurgical practice.
References
Hakan T (2022) Philosophy of science and black swan. Childs Nerv Syst 38:1655–1657
Hansson SO (2021) Science and pseudo-science. Stanf encycl philos 1–41. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Popper K (1962) Conjectures and refutations. The growths of scientific knowledge. Basic Books, New York
Shea B (2016) Karl Popper: Philosophy of science. Internet Encycl Philos. https://iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/
Popper K (1989) Falsifizierbarkeit, zweiBedeutungen von. In: Seiffert H and Radnitzky G (eds) HandlexikonzurWisseschaftstheorie, 2nd edition, München: Ehrenwirth GmbH Verlag
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Viktor Bartanusz; writing (original draft preparation): Viktor Bartanusz; writing (review and editing): Derek C. Samples; supervision: Derek C. Samples.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Samples, D.C., Bartanusz, V. Re: Hakan, T. (2022) Philosophy of science and black swan. Child’s Nervous System 38: 1655–1657. Childs Nerv Syst 39, 329 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-022-05813-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-022-05813-z