🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct27.023900.29811@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>: I've included sci.physics in this discussion since there was a recent
>: discussion about the contributions (if any) Karl Popper has made to
>: the philosophy of science, and I think that Karl Popper's theory of
>: falsifiability is relevant to the question of confirming universal
>: laws (such as all crows are black).
>: 
>I think that Carlo Rubbia's Nobel should be given back. After all, by
>establishing the existence of the W bosons, he didn't falsify anything,
>right? In fact, the only successful particle theory experiments, a la
>Popper, are those which find nothing.
>Or did Rubbia falsify the belief that W particles do not exist?

I haven't actually read Popper, but I think this is a serious misreading of
the claim that scientists should try to falsify hypotheses.  Nothing in this
implies or is intended to suggest that they are successful only as they
actually do falsify hypotheses.  Rather, the success comes from providing
good *opportunities* for falsification.  It varies depending on the exact
circumstances, but in general the success of the experimentalist is greater
when the falsification fails than when it succeeds.

Rubbia provided an excellent opportunity to falsify the belief that W
particles exist.  This "failed"; thus the experiment was a great success.