The Logic of Scientific Discovery is a deserved classic. Rarely has the genius of one man been able to so transform the tradition of scientific interpretation as Popper did. But since Popper has so many contemporary advocates I thought in this review I could suggest some problems or misinterpretations in his thought. Others have already explained his contributions with enthusiasm.
First, Popper is often seen as advocating a skeptical way of life--the principle of falsification is made to mean that one should always try to falsify one's one own theories and worldview. There may be some support for this philosophy in the Open Society but not in the Logic of Scientific Discovery. Here, Popper is explicit that he is not proffering a philosophy of life but a methodology for science.
Another related misconception is that Popper does not contend that his logic is the way science has historically progressed. The Logic of Scientific Discovery is explicit that it is normative. It argues not how science has progressed but how it should progress. The fact that Popper was so personally authoritarian that the line among his students was that his other major work should have been called "The Open Society by One of Its Enemies" seems eerily consistent with a philosophy professor dictating to scientists how they should conduct their work.
And here is where I find the work someone dated. Popper argues against the inductivism epitomized by John Maynard Keynes but seems oblivious to the work of statisticians like Ronald Fisher. Fisher, with his method of randomized experimentation was able to show the validity of inductive causal inferences. In the 1970s statisticians like Rubin extended these inductive arguments to observational studies. Meta-analyses using Bayesian inference have also shown then value of induction. Obviously, Popper cannot be held responsible for not recognizing the Rubin causal model. His inattention to Fisher, however, is troubling since he was a contemporary.
Most social science continues to progress within the Fisher/Neyman framework along with Bayesian advances. To be honest, Popper's work in this domain can seem as passé as the inductivism of Keynes.
That the Logic is a work of genius is indubitable. I would argue, however, that falsification is not the one valid method for science. A fortiori it is not a philosophy of life all human beings must follow.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Reviewed in the United States on October 4, 2017
Reviewed in the United States on November 1, 2018
Reviewed in the United States on April 18, 2014
Reviewed in the United States on January 24, 2013
Reviewed in the United States on December 18, 2014
Top reviews from other countries
Michael Sidiropoulos
Falsifiability as a demarcation criterion
Reviewed in Canada on May 23, 2019Fabrizio Ferrari
Kindle-version full of typos and mistakes
Reviewed in Italy on August 14, 2019
