Popper's Philosophy of Science: Looking Ahead
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Is Popper's philosophy alive or dead? If we make a judgment based on recent discussion in academic philosophy of science, he definitely seems to be fading. Popper is still seen as an important historical figure, a key part of the grand drama of 20th century thinking about science. He is associated with an outlook, a mindset, and a general picture of scientific work. His name has bequeathed us an adjective, "Popperian," that is well established. But the adjective is used for very general ideas that, according to most current philosophers, Popper did not develop convincingly. His detailed account is often seen as attractive on first impression, but full of holes that become bigger rather than smaller as discussion continues. The picture and the name remain, which is more than 1 most philosophers can hope for. But the name attaches more and more to a set of instincts and intuitions, less and less to views that are seeing ongoing philosophical development. Inside science itself, Popper's standing is quite different. He continues to be just about the only philosopher who can seize the imagination and command the loyalty of successful professional scientists. And he is popular within science not only for purposes of general commentary and public relations. Popper's philosophy is a resource drawn on by scientists in their internal debates about scientific matters. This has been especially marked in some parts of biology (Hull 1999). From the point of view of philosophers, this affection on the part of scientists may have an unflattering explanation. Popper offers a rather heroic view of the scientific character, featuring an appealing combination of creativity and hard-headedness. It is no surprise that scientists like to be described this way. It is no surprise that they prefer this picture to the one often (though inaccurately) associated with Hempel and Carnap – the scientist as a sort of logic-driven pattern-recognition machine. The same applies to the picture associated with Kuhn, who presents the normal scientist as a narrow-minded, indoctrinated member of a peculiar collective enterprise, an enterprise devoted to solving tiny puzzles most of the time but prone to occasional fits of crisis and chaos..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Peter Godfrey-Smith (2008). Recurrent Transient Underdetermination and the Glass Half Full. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 137 (1):141 - 148.
Similar books and articles
Herbert Keuth (2005). The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Cambridge University Press.
Timothy Cleveland (1997). A Refutation of Pure Conjecture. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28 (1):55-81.
Geoff Stokes (1997). Karl Popper's Political Philosophy of Social Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 27 (1):56-79.
Noretta Koertge (2009). The Moral Underpinnings of Popper's Philosophy. In. In Zuzana Parusniková & R. S. Cohen (eds.), Rethinking Popper. Springer. 323--338.
Tom Settle (1996). Six Things Popper Would Like Biologists Not to Ignore: In Memoriam, Karl Raimund Popper, 1902–1994. Biology and Philosophy 11 (2):141-159.
Nicholas Maxwell (1972). A Critique of Popper's Views on Scientific Method. Philosophy of Science 39 (2):131-152.
reviewed John Wettersten (2006). I. C. Jarvie: The Republic of Science: The Emergence of Popper's Social View of Science 1935–1945,. Philosophy of Science 73 (1):108-121.
David L. Hull (1999). The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper. Biology and Philosophy 14 (4):481-504.
Added to index2009-09-26
Total downloads48 ( #28,741 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?