The abusive use of the arguments against Logic and Truth

Karl Popper suggested that for scientists "mere truth" is not enough. What they want are explanations or solutions to specific problems.

Now that you brought Popper to mind I like the method of empirical falsification...



...I have no problems with provisional truths...although I have problems with the refutation of any possible theory in town...

Beware reliance on Popper in these matters.

Popper's "falsifiability in principle" criterion was intended by him to differentiate between "science" and "pseudo-science". Historically, he used it to reject Freudian and Marxist theories as "scientific". However, he ran into difficulties with both the complementarity principle (wave-particle duality) and with statistical laws in quantum theory and the social sciences. This was part of the impetus behind Kuhn's (alternative) paradigmatic view of "scientific revolutions" in which the significance of counter-examples was relative to dynamic paradigmatic coherence, rather than critical as originally implied by Popper.

I think followers of Kuhn took paradigm as an alternative to Popper. I believe Kuhn intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. Kuhn's greatness was as a historian of science.

Correct. But acceptance of Kuhn carries with it acceptance of "reality as interactive narrative" rather than Popper's implied "independent reality". i.e Descriptivity devalues prescriptivity.

Did Popper think that falsification was the principal function of philosophy? I think that IS important, but not nearly so critical for the growth of Science as the GENERATION of falsifiable hypotheses. But I would even include unfalsifiable speculations for the growth of civilization.

Popper's interest in falsification stemmed from its asymmetric logical import relative to verification. (re: truth table for IF-THEN) I perhaps characterized him incorrectly above as implying the existence of "an independent reality", rather he saw epistemological progress as "the solution of problems"(i.e the resolution of inconsistencies). However it was the case that rejected all forms of "historicism" which is perhaps a better angle on his departure from Kuhn.

Thanks. I'm now motivated to read my copy of his classic, The Poverty of Historicism (?). But I'm having trouble finding it.

Thanks. I'm now motivated to read my copy of his classic, The Poverty of Historicism (?). But I'm having trouble finding it.

...honestly that jigsaw in between prescriptive and descriptive is pretty much lame...the word may seem like a soft stake on a first look but on second examination one immediately grasps the naivety of such reasoning...it fits better a political background then a philosophical set...

Damage limitation:

Ignored arguments from those victims of incorrect worldly problem solving 'system hammers' which decimate argument on premises of 'instability' re: majority.
Confuse and terminate the potential for comprehension.
Tactic momentary adaptation is a 'hammer break' designed to achieve % objective in momentary argument at the expense of self.

Arguers thus choose their fights or have only one major.
Presumption the fallen are all incorrect, is naive of you.

Attacking base logic as a stratagem is designated to be also a belief breaker, there are those thousands who adapt parallel to the attack.