The Paradox of Karl Popper (philosophy of science)

#1
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...rl-popper/

INTRO: The great philosopher, renowned for his ferocious attacks on scientific and political dogmatism, could be quite dogmatic . . . The world has been paying lots of attention to philosopher Karl Popper lately, although surely not as much as he would think he deserves. Popper, 1902-1994, railed against dogmatism in all forms. He is best-known for the principle of falsification, a means of distinguishing pseudo-scientific theories, like astrology and Freudian psychoanalysis, from genuine ones, like quantum mechanics and general relativity. The latter, Popper pointed out, make predictions that can be empirically tested. But scientists can never prove a theory to be true, Popper insisted, because the next test might contradict all that preceded it. Observations can only disprove a theory, or falsify it.

In The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945, Popper asserted that politics, even more than science, must avoid dogmatism, which inevitably fosters repression. Open Society has been invoked lately by those concerned about the rise of anti-democratic forces. Popper’s falsification principle has been used to attack string and multiverse theories, which cannot be empirically tested. Defenders of strings and multiverses deride critics as “Popperazzi.”

Given the abiding interest in this complex thinker, I am posting an edited version of my profile of Popper in The End of Science. Please also check out my profiles of two other great philosophers of science, Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. –John Horgan...

MORE: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...rl-popper/
Reply
#2
:
Quote: But scientists can never prove a theory to be true, Popper insisted, because the next test might contradict all that preceded it.


Was thinking of Popper a few weeks back when I told Ostro that his conclusions/theories lacked verisimilitude, a quality of believability.

Though scientific theory may fail testing eventually, a great many of them are believable. Maybe theory shouldn't be equated.with proof, two entirely different things IMHO.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Smolin's "Einstein's Unfinished Revolution" interviews (philosophy of science) C C 1 33 Jun 13, 2019 01:03 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Incongruence between scientific facts & observations (philosophy of science) C C 1 170 Sep 19, 2018 07:10 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Nancy Cartwright´s Philosophy of Science C C 0 136 Jul 4, 2018 06:16 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why ecologists might want to read more philosophy of science C C 0 158 Jun 18, 2018 08:25 PM
Last Post: C C
  Seeing is not simple: You need to be both knowing & naive (philosophy of science) C C 2 300 May 26, 2018 03:48 PM
Last Post: C C
  Giant fish found + The case for more science & philosophy books for children C C 0 175 Jul 25, 2017 09:40 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)