Even though Popper is the creator of positivism, it is actually incorrect that he insisted on falsifiability to the degree that is often attributed to him.
He believed there was a place for deductive science reasoning. Einstein's theories at the time could not be empirically tested, for instance, and Popper did not reject them.
To add to this: Popper actually became incredibly critical of strict positivists, and came to endorse a view he called "critical rationalism".
This is all a really novel take.
- He didn’t think relativity was falsifiable? What about Popper’s early impression w/ Mercury experiments?
- I thought positivism was more of a theory of language and had very little to do w falsifiability?
- He literally wrote many essays outlining the rough framework above?
- And at any rate, …AGW is testable or no?
#notroll, I’m working my views on AGW
My strong guess is that if Popper were alive today, he would be strongly inclined to believe that anthropogenic climate change was real based on the preponderance of empirical evidence, and the logical deductions that can be extracted from our understanding of quantum physics and thermodynamics. In particular, the thermal absorption properties of CO2 and methane, the strong correlation of temperature and CO2 levels in the geological record, exoplanetary science, etc.
OK I can follow that ✅
It's not novel. Popper did not subscribe to strict positivism. He believed it made for a stronger theory.
Popper is one of my favorite philosophers, and anybody who has read him in detail would not be surprised by anything I'm saying.
Popper's critical rationalism emphasized both the importance of having conjecture and refutation at the center of scientific inquiry. Both empiricism and logical deduction were seen as important tools in this regard. To the extent that people believe Popper was a strict positivist, they have absorbed a false folk viewpoint on the matter.
