Scan barcode
samdalefox's review
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.75
This is one of those classic texts where you read it and know how important it is, but the language is hard to grasp. One where it's best to get the main concept from Wikipedia or Stanford's dictionary of philosophy before you dive in. Though I don't mean to say that there is nothing in the original text that you can't get elesewhere, no, I think there's important extra detail given in the book that's worth wading through to fully understand. I would say Chapters 1-5 are most important to take your time and read carefully, anything you take in after that may be beneficial but is not critical to understand.
The mian concept Popper is proposing in the book is 'deductive reasoning' (as opposed to the main practice at the time of 'inductive reasoning' by positivists). Popper proposes that all scientific experimentation should seek to falsify rather than verify a scientific statement. He argues that the concept of empirical science requires experience as a method, i.e., hinging on hypothesis testing, which can lead to more accurate and progressive scientific theories. Overall, his arguments are convincing and clearly changed the course of scientinfic practice during the 20th century. I cannot speak to the quality of his arguments and evidence post Chapter 5 because it became progressively harder to read and I don't believe I understand it fully.
I'll be purchasing a copy to keep on my bookshelf for reference. I had to do an inter-library loan to get this copy, so I'll release it back into the library-system for others to enjoy.
The mian concept Popper is proposing in the book is 'deductive reasoning' (as opposed to the main practice at the time of 'inductive reasoning' by positivists). Popper proposes that all scientific experimentation should seek to falsify rather than verify a scientific statement. He argues that the concept of empirical science requires experience as a method, i.e., hinging on hypothesis testing, which can lead to more accurate and progressive scientific theories. Overall, his arguments are convincing and clearly changed the course of scientinfic practice during the 20th century. I cannot speak to the quality of his arguments and evidence post Chapter 5 because it became progressively harder to read and I don't believe I understand it fully.
I'll be purchasing a copy to keep on my bookshelf for reference. I had to do an inter-library loan to get this copy, so I'll release it back into the library-system for others to enjoy.
virtualmima's review
challenging
informative
slow-paced
3.25
I like that Karl Popper was able to send positivism to its grave, but he could have done so with less words and less mathematical formulas.
lucy_qhuay's review
4.0
Had to read this one for my epistemology classes. A very good point on the creation of science.
adamz24's review
3.0
I am not convinced by Popper on most of the big issues here; I think I side more with Kuhn on most, but it's hard to deny that this book is remarkable, that Popper's arguments are crisp and solid, and that without this book, much would be very, very different today.
cinaedussinister's review
4.0
This is undeniably a very important and influential book: it is, in my opinion, what saved science-oriented philosophy from the dreaded Logical Positivists. He did this by replacing the greatly flawed verification principle with the significantly more justified and prudent falsification principle, and for this Popper deserves much praise. Although I don’t follow his Falsification principle myself as I find it still a little too simple and wrought with assumptions (I am a follower of Deleuze’s difference principle), his work nevertheless constitutes likely the biggest advance in Epistemology in the 20th Century, and can thus be classified as a great work.
alexander0's review
3.0
This book has been said to be one of the modern fundamentals of philosophy of science. Seeing as the logic of this book has been considered an adoration of social and natural scientists alike, I felt a moral obligation to read it. Upon completion, in short, I thought Popper make a few very clear and solid points (largely in Part I), however they were not without faults of social, behavioral ignorance of scientists.
This book is very approachable and science friendly. It's no wonder scientists love this book. It easily justifies fallibility in the face of a formerly 'scientific induction-heavy' epidemiological view. It was very easy, in some ways, for scientists to simply switch their statements from "Point A must be true as we could not prove point A false," to "Point A still stands a potentially useful theory upon empirical evidence." This book reads to the scientists as a scientific ethics book on how to present the scientific discipline. However, it is a very simple theory that Popper does try to make more complex with examples of "dimensions of basis" and "dimensions of falsifiers" among other ideas that largely were loosely constructed, and not very meaningful. To put it in a Popperian epistemology, the class of the axiometric basis greatly outstripped the class of falsifiers.
If anyone has read any other thought on epistemology thereafter would note that much of what Popper claims is the empirical scientist's job is in fact much more time consuming than the average scientist would be willing to put forth. Such a point requires a social dimension to discovering the meanings of scientific developments.
This book is very approachable and science friendly. It's no wonder scientists love this book. It easily justifies fallibility in the face of a formerly 'scientific induction-heavy' epidemiological view. It was very easy, in some ways, for scientists to simply switch their statements from "Point A must be true as we could not prove point A false," to "Point A still stands a potentially useful theory upon empirical evidence." This book reads to the scientists as a scientific ethics book on how to present the scientific discipline. However, it is a very simple theory that Popper does try to make more complex with examples of "dimensions of basis" and "dimensions of falsifiers" among other ideas that largely were loosely constructed, and not very meaningful. To put it in a Popperian epistemology, the class of the axiometric basis greatly outstripped the class of falsifiers.
If anyone has read any other thought on epistemology thereafter would note that much of what Popper claims is the empirical scientist's job is in fact much more time consuming than the average scientist would be willing to put forth. Such a point requires a social dimension to discovering the meanings of scientific developments.
harisadurrani's review
3.0
Dry but impressive, will keep on the shelf for future ref. 3.5 stars. Popper's got a serious falsifiability fetish & a major preoccupation with (evading) metaphysics. His chapter on quantum, in debate with Heisenberg, was particularly interesting.