Scan barcode
A review by samdalefox
The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.75
This is one of those classic texts where you read it and know how important it is, but the language is hard to grasp. One where it's best to get the main concept from Wikipedia or Stanford's dictionary of philosophy before you dive in. Though I don't mean to say that there is nothing in the original text that you can't get elesewhere, no, I think there's important extra detail given in the book that's worth wading through to fully understand. I would say Chapters 1-5 are most important to take your time and read carefully, anything you take in after that may be beneficial but is not critical to understand.
The mian concept Popper is proposing in the book is 'deductive reasoning' (as opposed to the main practice at the time of 'inductive reasoning' by positivists). Popper proposes that all scientific experimentation should seek to falsify rather than verify a scientific statement. He argues that the concept of empirical science requires experience as a method, i.e., hinging on hypothesis testing, which can lead to more accurate and progressive scientific theories. Overall, his arguments are convincing and clearly changed the course of scientinfic practice during the 20th century. I cannot speak to the quality of his arguments and evidence post Chapter 5 because it became progressively harder to read and I don't believe I understand it fully.
I'll be purchasing a copy to keep on my bookshelf for reference. I had to do an inter-library loan to get this copy, so I'll release it back into the library-system for others to enjoy.
The mian concept Popper is proposing in the book is 'deductive reasoning' (as opposed to the main practice at the time of 'inductive reasoning' by positivists). Popper proposes that all scientific experimentation should seek to falsify rather than verify a scientific statement. He argues that the concept of empirical science requires experience as a method, i.e., hinging on hypothesis testing, which can lead to more accurate and progressive scientific theories. Overall, his arguments are convincing and clearly changed the course of scientinfic practice during the 20th century. I cannot speak to the quality of his arguments and evidence post Chapter 5 because it became progressively harder to read and I don't believe I understand it fully.
I'll be purchasing a copy to keep on my bookshelf for reference. I had to do an inter-library loan to get this copy, so I'll release it back into the library-system for others to enjoy.