Abstract

Karl Popper's influential theory of science has been widely debated and vigorously criticized over the last few decades. The central concepts of Popper's theory, those of falsifiability, corroboration, and verisimilitude have been by-words in the literature of the Philosophy of Science during this period. Popper's challenges to orthodoxy and, in some ways, radical views, have generated considerable controversy. There have been sharp criticisms and a few defenders---but even among the defenders one sees mostly appropriations, rather than genuine defense. There has not, however, been any systematic general defense of his central views in the literature. This dissertation attempts such a defense, by way of a careful examination and sympathetic interpretation of the main themes of Popper's theory, namely, the role of falsifiability in responding to the demarcation problem and solving the problem of induction, the insistence on corroboration as a desirable feature of scientific theories as well as an indicator of empirical progress, and the theory of verisimilitude, according to which the long-term aim of science is properly pursued by means of advancing theories which constitute better approximations to the truth than their competitors. ;The overall strategy is to review carefully the most important criticisms of each of the above themes in Popper's theory. After providing background for a discussion of the matters at issue, I try to disarm the objections by showing that they misconstrue Popper's intent; to this end I provide alternative interpretations of how Popper can be properly understood and propose minor revisions to the concepts analyzed . After dissolving the objections and developing the fundamental notions with the revisions introduced, Popper's theory of science emerges rehabilitated