The Logic of Scientific Discovery

This is a primary text in the philosophy of science. And it was delivered to my doorstep in two days.....it just doesn't get any better than that.

A classic - something that everyone should read to get some insights on scientific research.

Solid source of Popper's classic writing.

I received this book as advertised. Everything went as expected with no problems and I am completely satisfied with the purchase.

In The Logic of Scientific Discovery Karl Popper presents his brilliant thesis that no amount of positive experimentatal results can prove a scientific theory to be correct but a single negative result can prove a theory to be wrong. According to Popper, science is not a collection of established laws but rather a system by which hypotheses are tested experimentally. If a hypothesis survives numerous rigorous experiments, it gains plausability -- but it can never be definitively proven to be completely correct. This view is discomforting to many scientists but, nevertheless, has become the dominant view in recent years. As a research scientist with 43 years experience, I welcome Popper's position that science is a vibrant process of continuing hypothesis and experimentation rather than a stagnant collection of unquestionable truths.

It’s an old book, but still relevant today. It’s translated from the German original.

Still reading.

This is really interesting, important and influential book in sum. However there are too much philosophy that make it boring to read.

Brilliant and challenging book. I learned a lot but some chapters are very difficult. Discussing in our book club next week. I purchased a used book in very good shape.

Read the other confrontations and refutations before this. This book is too hard to read.

a scientific thought of an era

This is a definitive piece of work for anyone who wants to understand scientific theory. However, it is not an easy read, even for those with a science background. If you are prepared to concentrate, the rewards are enormous.

Cet ouvrage a joué un rôle majeur dans l'histoire des sciences, dont il a influencé la plupart des disciplines. Aujourd'hui, il est trop focalisé sur la physique, et surtout la physique mathématique, pour être vraiment pertinent pour mon domaine, la science économique et plus généralement les sciences sociales. L'approfondissement des connaissances en matière de test statistique depuis les travaux de Neyman et Pearson dans les années 1920 nous a montré les limites du "falsificationnisme" pur. On doit faire un arbitrage entre erreur de type 1 et erreur de type 2, on a des problèmes d'identification quand on ajoute des variables de test, on ne peut pas conclure en termes de "vrai ou faux", mais seulement comparer des hypothèses, etc. En pratique, la profession utilise une démarche plus modeste consistant la plupart du temps à comparer l'apport de l'hypothèse avancée par rapport à l'ignorance absolue et se lance très rarement dans des confrontations directes d'hypothèses exclusives. De plus, la persuasion et l'élégance jouent un rôle très important, de sorte qu'il est plus facile de publier une hypothèse "sexy" qu'un travail laborieux de comparaison d'hypothèses. Pourtant, la logique des tests statistiques montre sans le moindre doute que c'est la seule chose qu'on peut faire en utilisant des données dans un esprit scientifique.