Initially it seemed to me that falsificationism is a reliable scientific methodology for disregarding hypotheses/theories. Upon some thinking, however, I conclude that it is not. Below I explain why. Can you give me your thoughts on this?
Falsification of a hypothesis appears to be be possible by extrapolating a prediction from a hypothesis which, given a particular set of observations/cases/experiments, is false - seemingly making the hypothesis false as well.
is a universal hypothesis which states that object 'x', when existing in condition 'W' behaves in 'Z' manner.
We observe a particular set of and hence .
Logically this can be represented as:
To make things simple let's simplify above by the following:
Now, algebraically via Morgans law if we apply a negation to both sides of implication where the left side is a conjunction (we are doing that in order to achieve negation of q) we get:
which is equivalent to
This means that observation of does not entitle us to conclude that is the case, as we have logical disjunction on the left side!
I am puzzled by that. Basically even if you observe a negation of prediction made from hypothesis it doesn't mean that the hypothesis is false. It could be that the observation itself is false. As a scientist it makes me a bit uncomfortable...
--- BELOW ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION (in the light of comments)
I have relied on in my proof because scientific prediction is never made directly from hypothesis. Instead it is made from 'instantiation' of hypothesis, which could be in form of e.g. observation or designed experiment. Let me illustrate by example.
Let be "Glass breaks when thrown on the floor". Now we design the experiment in an attempt to falsify . Let be "I design experiment where I throw a piece of glass on the floor". survives the falsification attempt when is "I see glass breaks". However it doesn't. Thus negation of is the case. According to the proof presented above it is not possible to falsify with this observation.
My question is whether there is a sound philosophical answer to this conundrum that is hand-in-hand with falsifiability.