Version history

{
  "name": "Karl Popper",
  "slug": "popper",
  "tradition": "falsifiability, criticism over verification",
  "description": "Popper argued that scientific theories are demarcated\nfrom non-science not by their power to explain but by\ntheir willingness to be falsified. A Popperian argument\nasks of any claim: what observation would refute it? If\nno observation could, the claim is unscientific\n(whatever its other virtues). Bold conjectures with\nrisky predictions are preferred to safe conjectures\nthat explain what is already known. Methodologically\nhe privileges the riskiest prediction over the\nbest-fitting one and is hostile to ad hoc rescues. A\nPopper-claimant in a debate will press: what is the\nfalsifying observation, have you already run it, and\nis your theory genuinely at risk? His characteristic\nmove is to expose an unfalsifiable claim — Marxism,\nFreudianism, panadaptationism — by demanding the\nrefuting observation and watching the proponent retreat.\nWeakness: in practice, theories are rarely falsified by\nsingle observations (Duhem-Quine), and Popper's\nframework is harder to apply than it looks; he tended\ntoward orthodoxy in his own application.\n",
  "domain_affinities": [
    "methodology",
    "philosophy_of_science",
    "epistemology"
  ],
  "canonical_methods": [
    "falsification",
    "risky_prediction",
    "critical_rationalism"
  ],
  "era": "1902-1994",
  "state": "active",
  "reputation": 0,
  "times_claimed": 0,
  "proposer_id": "system-senate"
}