RC Series Bundle: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)
Described by the philosopher A.J. Ayer as a work of 'great originality and power', this book revolutionized contemporary thinking on science and knowledge. Ideas such as the now legendary doctrine of 'falsificationism' electrified the scientific community, influencing even working scientists, as well as post-war philosophy. This astonishing work ranks alongside The Open Society and Its Enemies as one of Popper's most enduring books and contains insights and arguments that demand to be read to this day.
old but still outstanding book
By A Customer - November 27, 2002
This is Popper's early masterpiece, which still deserves to be thoroughly read. Thesis of the book: theories are guesses which have no secure basis and can be at any time overthrown, but which must be able to stick out their necks and face experimental tests. If they pass the tests, this does not make them any more secure or reliable than they were before. Its first chapter explains two fundamental problems which will be grappled with in the following chapters: the problem of induction and the problem of demarcation (between science and non-science). The solution to the first problem is straightforward: there is no such thing as induction. If you want to learn more on Popper's formulation and purported solution of this problem, you should read the whole book.
The second chapter gives some methodological rules which, though presented as conventions, are set down in order to combat "conventionalism", the attempt to regard theories as irrefutable, as true by... read more
By Downtown Mr. Brown "John" - December 24, 2006
I have to ask myself, "What is the basis for my scientific knowledge?" On a daily basis, as I am a chemist. I have often been struck by arguments for "induction" as lacking credibility, because how can one argue of probabilities with an unknown sample size? Popper argues that a proposing scientific hypothesis is an inductive act, but it is a creative act not a logical one, but that scientific knowledge is dedective.
I agree with him. The nature of science is such that one must put for statements about how the world works and test them. A scientist should always try to find a way of proving himself or herself wrong. If the predictions of the test are shown to be false, then the hypothesis must be false. That is the basis of scientific knowledge. The rest, the best theories we have are just "working models" and we can never justify why they work. They're simply our best working models now.
I don't find Popper's argument disheartening. Popper points out... read more
From avant garde to rear guard
By Thomas J. Hickey - November 17, 2005
Logic of Scientific Discovery is Popper's magnum opus, and is one of the most important works in twentieth-century philosophy of science. Its title notwithstanding the book is not about the processes for inventing new scientific theories; it is about the criticism of theories and the growth of scientific knowledge.
Eddington's solar eclipse observations in 1919 corroborating Einstein's theory of gravitation led Popper to conclude that when scientists test a theory, they aim to refute the theory rather than verify it. This falsificationist philosophy of scientific criticism is a central thesis of Popper's philosophy of science. Peirce had anticipated Popper's falsificationist thesis, but Popper drew implications that anticipated the contemporary pragmatist philosophy of language and science, even as he rejected pragmatism. His most important anticipation is his rejection of the naturalistic theory of meaning that is fundamental to positivism.
How do doctors decide whether their drugs, or other treatments, actually work? In practice this can be fiendishly difficult. Nowadays the gold standard is the randomised controlled trial (RCT). But ...
Much like The Chicago Manual of Style , The Manual of Scientific Style addresses all stylistic matters in the relevant disciplines of physical and biological science, medicine, health, and technology ...