Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Hi Guys,
Well, as a philosophy novice I quite like Popper's ideas about what real science is... although i can tell from all of your responses that I have a lot of other reading to do!! Basically just wanted to ask.. what is Popper's view on science that does not come from a theory, and is just exploratory? Obviously you can't falsify it as the author doesn't say either way what they expect, but does he still consider this to not be science. I can't find anywhere that says about exploratory science... any help would be appreciated thanks!!
Hi all!
Popper's theories of scientific explanation are indeed fascinating! Thank you for the great introduction, Ragnar.
I was recently thinking about his notion of "corroboration" in comparison with the Vienna Circle's idea of "confirmation" - as far as I get it, the main difference is that an instance of corroboration might have falsified the given hypothesis (but didn't), whereas this is not true for an instance of confirmation. So which would it be more appropriate to say: that corroborating instances compose a subset of confirming instances, or that the two notions are completely disparate?
No working scientist, I imagine, really thinks that all he is doing is trying to falsify rival theories of his own rather than confirm his own theory.