Scan barcode
A review by alexander0
The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
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.