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.