The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Logic of Scientific Discovery (imprint 1935, actually 1934) and The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959 ) is the main epistemological work of Karl Popper. It characterizes in empirical science over the demarcation criterion of falsifiability and argues that they should apply the falsification as a method.

Formation

Poppers learning theory or the theory of knowledge acquisition, which he developed in the Logic of Scientific Discovery, follows Kant's primacy of theoretical thought. Man as gifted memory, learning organism actively developed expectations that are gradually adjusted by trial and error. These learning psychology is reversed by Popper in his main epistemological work in a logical examination of scientific research on a methodology which he mainly in his presentation is aimed at the dominant philosophy of science at the time of the Vienna Circle.

In the English tradition of epistemology, of Bacon Locke to Hume and John Stuart Mill, the truth claims of scientific assertions by the derivation of law statements from individual empirical observations will ensure wanted (so-called inductive method ). According to Popper, the method of this inherent problem of induction is logically unsolvable. In contrast, it is logically feasible to refute statements by special general statements. Consequently, Popper argues for his deductive method of investigation under trial and error.

Content

In dealing with the logical positivism of Popper, the task is to find a criterion to distinguish empirical science to mathematics and logic, but also against metaphysics. To this end, he proposes the falsifiability of a hypothesis derived from a theory of basis sets.

After this introduction to the basic problems of the logic of knowledge, the indispensability of each determination is emphasized within the methodology, as opposed to a naturalistic -conceived methodology that merely describes how science is actually operated.

Theories, their different degree of testability and simplicity, the empirical basis as a test of their falsifiability are analyzed as elements of a theory of experience. In addition, be paid to questions of probability and the probation and quantum mechanics corresponding chapter.

The book has been repeatedly applied and supplemented until shortly before his death in 1994 by the author for further attachments.

The two fundamental problems of epistemology

There is a close connection between the logic of the research and the book The two fundamental problems of epistemology, which Popper had previously written, which was not published until much later. While Popper himself admitted that the logic of the research is mainly a condensed version of the second volume, Malachi Haim Hacohen led to some arguments for the thesis that the book had arisen independently. Major parts of the manuscript of the basic problems are missing - either because they were used for the manuscript of logic, if one follows the opinion of Popper, or because they were never available (after Hacohens view).

Reception

Popper has expressly held against the following misunderstandings and misinterpretations:

• The fact that the original publication in a book series of the Vienna Circle, the presumption suggesting that he was himself a positivist (see, positivism dispute ).
• That he would represent the final falsifiability of scientific theories in the logic of research.
• That he had the falsifiability criterion as meaning want to introduce.
• That he wanted to find criteria for the dynamic totality of the prior research generally accepted theories, instead of a static criterion for all - true and false - empirical- scientific theories.
• That the method described in the book is just as clear from the history of science.
• That his epistemological considerations of studying psychology ( in the tradition of Oswald Külpe - Würzburg School - Karl Bühler) were significantly affected and his " attacks against the positivists [ ... ] then to be understood as a direct continuation of the attacks [ can ], the Koffka and Buhler had previously directed against the association psychology ".

Moreover, Popper noted that the book had been criticized by people who have obviously not read it.