Summary of Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery

By IRB Media

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book. Book Preview:

#1 The task of the logic of scientific discovery is to analyze the method of the empirical sciences. The methods of the empirical sciences are the steps that a scientist takes to test his hypotheses.

#2 The problem of induction is the question of the validity of universal statements based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. People believe that the truth of these universal statements is known by experience, but it is clear that an account of an experience can only be a singular statement and not a universal one.

#3 The principle of induction is a universal statement that is accepted by the whole of science. However, this does not mean that it is known from experience. The attempt to base the principle of induction on experience leads to an infinite regress.

#4 The work of the scientist is to put forward and test theories. The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me to be neither susceptible of nor calling for logical analysis.

• Language: English
• Publisher: IRB Media
• Release date: May 4, 2022
• ISBN: 9798822502734

IRB Media

With IRB books, you can get the key takeaways and analysis of a book in 15 minutes. We read every chapter, identify the key takeaways and analyze them for your convenience.

Book preview

Insights on Karl Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Contents

Insights from Chapter 1

Insights from Chapter 2

Insights from Chapter 1

#1

The task of the logic of scientific discovery is to analyze the method of the empirical sciences. The methods of the empirical sciences are the steps that a scientist takes to test his hypotheses.

#2

The problem of induction is the question of the validity of universal statements based on experience, such as the hypotheses and theoretical systems of the empirical sciences. People believe that the truth of these universal statements is known by experience, but it is clear that an account of an experience can only be a singular statement and not a universal one.

#3

The principle of induction is a universal statement that is accepted by the whole of science. However, this does not mean that it is known from experience. The attempt to base the principle of induction on experience leads to an infinite regress.

#4

The work of the scientist is to put forward and test theories. The initial stage, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me to be neither susceptible of nor calling for logical analysis.

#5

The method of critically testing theories, and selecting them according to the results of tests, always proceeds on the following lines. From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any way, conclusions are drawn by means of logical deduction. These conclusions are then compared with one another and with other relevant statements.

#6

The problem of demarcation is the source of all the other problems of the theory of knowledge. It is clear that the implied criterion of demarcation is identical with the demand for an inductive logic. I reject inductive logic, and thus all attempts to solve the problem of demarcation.

#7

The positivist attempt to demarcate science from metaphysics is to say that scientific laws are logically reducible to elementary statements of experience. But this is not the case for natural laws, which cannot be accepted as genuine or legitimate statements.

#8

I believe that science should be focused on absolutely certain, irrevocably true statements. But I also believe that science cannot exist without metaphysical ideas, and that it is impossible for scientific discovery to occur without faith in such ideas.

#9

The definition of an empirical science is not easy to come by. The three requirements are that the system must be synthetic and non-contradictory, it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation, and it must be distinguished from other systems that represent our world of experience.

#10

The criterion of demarcation inherent in inductive logic is that all the statements of empirical science must be capable of being finally decided, with respect to their truth and falsity. But I propose that we accept a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience.

#11

The proposed criterion of demarcation leads us to a solution of Hume’s problem of induction. It is based on the fact that all empirical scientific statements are susceptible to falsification, which is why they can be tested by systematic attempts to falsify them.

#12

The problem of the empirical basis is one that arises within the logic of science, but not in connection with singular statements. It is often urgent in relation to theoretical systems, but rarely in relation to singular statements.

#13

The terms objective and subjective are philosophical terms that are heavily burdened with a heritage of contradictory usages and inconclusive discussions. I use the terms objective and subjective to indicate that scientific