Karl Popper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH FBA FRS [7] (28 July 1902
17 September 1994) was an Austrian Jewish-British
Sir Karl Popper
CH FBA FRS
philosopher and professor.[8][9][10] He is generally regarded
as one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers of
science.[11][12][13]

Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist

views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical
falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be
proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should
be scrutinized by decisive experiments. Popper is also known
for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of
knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism,
namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism
in the history of philosophy."[14]

In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defence

of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism
Popper c. 1980s
that he came to believe made a flourishing open society
possible. His political philosophy embraces ideas from all Born Karl Raimund Popper
major democratic political ideologies and attempts to 28 July 1902
reconcile them: socialism/social democracy, Vienna, Austria-Hungary
libertarianism/classical liberalism and conservatism.[15] Died 17 September 1994 (aged 92)
London, England, UK
Nationality Austrian
Contents British

1 Personal life Alma mater University of Vienna

1.1 Family and training Era 20th-century philosophy
1.2 Academic life
1.3 Death Region Western philosophy
2 Honours and awards School Critical rationalism
3 Philosophy
3.1 Background to Popper's ideas Realism[1]
3.2 Philosophy of science Liberalism
3.2.1 Falsifiability/problem of Main Epistemology
demarcation interests Rationality
3.2.2 Falsification/problem of induction
Philosophy of science
3.3 Rationality
3.4 Philosophy of arithmetic Logic
3.5 Political philosophy Social and political philosophy
3.5.1 The paradox of tolerance Metaphysics
3.6 Metaphysics Philosophy of mind
3.6.1 Truth Origin of life
3.6.2 Cosmological pluralism
Interpretation of Quantum
3.6.3 Origin and evolution of life
3.6.4 Free will mechanics
3.7 Religion and God Notable Bold hypothesis
4 Influence ideas Critical rationalism
5 Criticism
Falsificationism
 6 Bibliography Evolutionary trial and error
7 See also view of the growth of
8 References
knowledge
9 Further reading
10 External links Propensity interpretation
Open society
Reflexivity effect
Cosmological pluralism
Personal life
Modified essentialism
Axiomatization of probability
Family and training
Active Darwinism
Karl Popper was born in Vienna (then in Austria-Hungary) in Spearhead model of evolution
1902, to upper middle-class parents. All of Karl Popper's Objective hermeneutics
grandparents were Jewish but were not devout, and as part of The paradox of tolerance
the cultural assimilation process, the Popper family Critical dualism (of facts and
converted to Lutheranism before Karl was born,[16][17] and standards)
so he received Lutheran baptism.[18][19] Karl's father Simon Logic of scientific discovery
Siegmund Carl Popper was a lawyer from Bohemia and a Experimental corroboration as
doctor of law at the Vienna University, and mother Jenny an indicator of
Schiff was of Silesian and Hungarian descent. Karl Popper's verisimilitude/truthlikeness
uncle was the Austrian philosopher Josef Popper-Lynkeus. Basissatz (basic statement)
After establishing themselves in Vienna, the Poppers made a Popper's experiment
rapid social climb in Viennese society: Simon Siegmund Carl The historicismhistorism
became a partner in the law firm of Vienna's liberal mayor
distinction
Raimund Grbl and, after Grbl's death in 1898, Simon took
Negative utilitarianism
over the business. Karl received his middle name after
Raimund Grbl.[16] (Popper himself, in his autobiography, Influences
erroneously recalls that Grbl's first name was Carl.[20]) His Socrates Lycophron Aristotle
father was a bibliophile who had 12,00014,000 volumes in Descartes[2] Kant Schopenhauer Fries
his personal library[21] and took an interest in philosophy, the Hegel Kierkegaard[3] Einstein Vienna
classics, and social and political issues.[11] Popper inherited Circle Hayek Tarski Selz Russell
both the library and the disposition from him.[22] Later, he Campbell Burke Mill Hume Peirce
would describe the atmosphere of his upbringing as having Frege Bolzano Husserl Wchtershuser
been "decidedly bookish."[11] Influenced
Virtually all philosophy of science since the
Popper left school at the age of 16 and attended lectures in
1930s Hayek Friedman Lakatos
mathematics, physics, philosophy, psychology and the
history of music as a guest student at the University of Feyerabend Soros Miller Agassi Bartley
Vienna. In 1919, Popper became attracted by Marxism and Gombrich Jarvie Dahrendorf Levinson
subsequently joined the Association of Socialist School Gellner Munz Magee Lorenz Shearmur
Students.[11] He also became a member of the Social Medawar Dimitrakos Albert Gellner
Democratic Workers' Party of Austria, which was at that time Kuhn[4] Verhofstadt Taleb Schmidt
a party that fully adopted the Marxist ideology.[11] After the Redhead[5] Gillies Deutsch Bartley
street battle in the Hrlgasse on 15 June 1919, when police
Eccles Penrose[6]
shot eight of his unarmed party comrades, he became
disillusioned by what he saw as the "pseudo-scientific"
historical materialism of Marx, abandoned the ideology, and Karl Popper
remained a supporter of social liberalism throughout his life.
Thesis Zur Methodenfrage der Denkpsychologie
He worked in street construction for a short amount of time, (On Questions of Method in the
but was unable to cope with the heavy labour. Continuing to Psychology of Thinking) (1928)
attend university as a guest student, he started an Doctoral Karl Ludwig Bhler
apprenticeship as cabinetmaker, which he completed as a advisor
journeyman. He was dreaming at that time of starting a
Doctoral Charles Leonard Hamblin
daycare facility for children, for which he assumed the
ability to make furniture might be useful. After that he did students
voluntary service in one of psychoanalyst Alfred Adler's
clinics for children. In 1922, he did his matura by way of a second chance
education and finally joined the University as an ordinary student. He
completed his examination as an elementary teacher in 1924 and started
working at an after-school care club for socially endangered children. In 1925,
he went to the newly founded Pdagogisches Institut and continued studying
philosophy and psychology. Around that time he started courting Josefine Anna
Henninger, who later became his wife.

In 1928, he earned a doctorate in psychology, under the supervision of Karl

Bhler. His dissertation was titled "Die Methodenfrage der Denkpsychologie"
(The question of method in cognitive psychology).[23] In 1929, he obtained the
authorisation to teach mathematics and physics in secondary school, which he
started doing. He married his colleague Josefine Anna Henninger (19061985)
in 1930. Fearing the rise of Nazism and the threat of the Anschluss, he started to
use the evenings and the nights to write his first book Die beiden Sir Karl Popper, bust in the
Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie (The Two Fundamental Problems of the Arkadenhof of the University
Theory of Knowledge). He needed to publish one to get some academic position of Vienna
in a country that was safe for people of Jewish descent. However, he ended up
not publishing the two-volume work, but a condensed version of it with some new material, Logik der
Forschung (The Logic of Scientific Discovery), in 1934. Here, he criticised psychologism, naturalism,
inductivism, and logical positivism, and put forth his theory of potential falsifiability as the criterion
demarcating science from non-science. In 1935 and 1936, he took unpaid leave to go to the United Kingdom
for a study visit.[24]

Academic life

In 1937, Popper finally managed to get a position that allowed him to emigrate to New Zealand, where he
became lecturer in philosophy at Canterbury University College of the University of New Zealand in
Christchurch. It was here that he wrote his influential work The Open Society and its Enemies. In Dunedin he
met the Professor of Physiology John Carew Eccles and formed a lifelong friendship with him. In 1946, after
the Second World War, he moved to the United Kingdom to become reader in logic and scientific method at the
London School of Economics. Three years later, in 1949, he was appointed professor of logic and scientific
method at the University of London. Popper was president of the Aristotelian Society from 1958 to 1959. He
retired from academic life in 1969, though he remained intellectually active for the rest of his life. In 1985, he
returned to Austria so that his wife could have her relatives around her during the last months of her life; she
died in November that year. After the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft failed to establish him as the director of
a newly founded branch researching the philosophy of science, he went back again to the United Kingdom in
1986, settling in Kenley, Surrey.[7]

Death

Popper died of "complications of cancer, pneumonia and kidney failure" in Kenley at the age of 92 on 17
September 1994.[25][26] He had been working continuously on his philosophy until two weeks before, when he
suddenly fell terminally ill.[27] After cremation, his ashes were taken to Vienna and buried at Lainzer cemetery
adjacent to the ORF Centre, where his wife Josefine Anna Popper (called Hennie) had already been
buried.[28] Popper's estate is managed by his secretary and personal assistant Melitta Mew and her husband
Raymond. Popper's manuscripts went to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, partly during his lifetime
and partly as supplementary material after his death. Klagenfurt University has Popper's library, including his
precious bibliophilia, as well as hard copies of the original Hoover
material and microfilms of the supplementary material. The remaining
parts of the estate were mostly transferred to The Karl Popper
Charitable Trust.[29] In October 2008 Klagenfurt University acquired
the copyrights from the estate.

Popper and his wife chose not to have children because of the
circumstances of war in the early years of their marriage. Popper
commented that this "was perhaps a cowardly but in a way a right
decision".[30] Sir Karl Popper's gravesite in Lainzer
Friedhof, in Vienna, Austria
Honours and awards
Popper won many awards and honours in his field, including the
Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, the
Sonning Prize, the Otto Hahn Peace Medal of the United Nations
Association of Germany in Berlin and fellowships in the Royal
Society,[7] British Academy, London School of Economics, King's
College London, Darwin College, Cambridge, Austrian Academy of
Sciences and Charles University, Prague. Austria awarded him the
Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold for Services to the Republic of
Sir Karl Popper, Prof. Cyril Hschl. Austria in 1986, and the Federal Republic of Germany its Grand Cross
K. Popper received the Honorary with Star and Sash of the Order of Merit, and the peace class of the
Doctor's degree of Charles University Order Pour le Mrite. He received the Humanist Laureate Award from
in Prague (May 1994) the International Academy of Humanism.[31] He was knighted by
Queen Elizabeth II in 1965,[32] and was elected a Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1976.[7] He was invested with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.[33]

Other awards and recognition for Popper included the City of Vienna Prize for the Humanities (1965), Karl
Renner Prize (1978), Austrian Decoration for Science and Art (1980), Dr. Leopold Lucas Prize of the
University of Tbingen (1980), Ring of Honour of the City of Vienna (1983) and the Premio Internazionale of
the Italian Federico Nietzsche Society (1988). In 1992, he was awarded the Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy
for "symbolising the open spirit of the 20th century"[34] and for his "enormous influence on the formation of
the modern intellectual climate".[34]

Philosophy
Background to Popper's ideas

Karl Popper's rejection of Marxism during his teenage years left a profound mark on his thought. He had at one
point joined a socialist association, and for a few months in 1919 considered himself a communist. During this
time he became familiar with the Marxist view of economics, class conflict, and history.[11] Although he
quickly became disillusioned with the views expounded by Marxism, his flirtation with the ideology led him to
distance himself from those who believed that spilling blood for the sake of a revolution was necessary. He
came to realise that when it came to sacrificing human lives, one was to think and act with extreme prudence.

The failure of democratic parties to prevent fascism from taking over Austrian politics in the 1920s and 1930s
traumatised Popper. He suffered from the direct consequences of this failure, since events after the Anschluss,
the annexation of Austria by the German Reich in 1938, forced him into permanent exile. His most important
works in the field of social scienceThe Poverty of Historicism (1944) and The Open Society and Its Enemies
(1945)were inspired by his reflection on the events of his time and represented, in a sense, a reaction to the
prevalent totalitarian ideologies that then dominated Central European politics. His books defended democratic
liberalism as a social and political philosophy. They also represented extensive critiques of the philosophical
presuppositions underpinning all forms of totalitarianism.[11]

Popper puzzled over the stark contrast between the non-scientific character of Freud and Adler's theories in the
field of psychology and the revolution set off by Einstein's theory of relativity in physics in the early 20th
century. Popper thought that Einstein's theory, as a theory properly grounded in scientific thought and method,
was highly "risky", in the sense that it was possible to deduce consequences from it which were, in the light of
the then-dominant Newtonian physics, highly improbable (e.g., that light is deflected towards solid bodies
confirmed by Eddington's experiments in 1919), and which would, if they turned out to be false, falsify the
whole theory. In contrast, nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories. He thus came to the
conclusion that psychoanalytic theories had more in common with primitive myths than with genuine
science.[11]

This led Popper to conclude that what were regarded as the remarkable strengths of psychoanalytical theories
were actually their weaknesses. Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute
any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour. The nature of such
theories made it impossible for any criticism or experimenteven in principleto show them to be false.[11]
This realisation had an important consequence when Popper later tackled the problem of demarcation in the
philosophy of science, as it led him to posit that the strength of a scientific theory lies in its both being
susceptible to falsification, and not actually being falsified by criticism made of it. He considered that if a
theory cannot, in principle, be falsified by criticism, it is not a scientific theory.[35]

Philosophy of science

Falsifiability/problem of demarcation

Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. Concerning the method of science, the
term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of
science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are
abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that
scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated
by the creative imagination to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory,
but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to
be false. To say that a given statement (e.g., the statement of a law of some scientific theory)call it "T"is
"falsifiable" does not mean that "T" is false. Rather, it means that, if "T" is false, then (in principle), "T" could
be shown to be false, by observation or by experiment. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between
verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take
falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be
considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis
and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that their theories are not falsifiable.

Popper also wrote extensively against the famous Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He
strongly disagreed with Niels Bohr's instrumentalism and supported Albert Einstein's realist approach to
scientific theories about the universe. Popper's falsifiability resembles Charles Peirce's nineteenth century
fallibilism. In Of Clocks and Clouds (1966), Popper remarked that he wished he had known of Peirce's work
earlier.

In All Life is Problem Solving, Popper sought to explain the apparent progress of scientific knowledgethat is,
how it is that our understanding of the universe seems to improve over time. This problem arises from his
position that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but
can only be falsified. Again, in this context the word "falsified" does not refer to something being "fake";
rather, that something can be (i.e., is capable of being) shown to be false by observation or experiment. Some
things simply do not lend themselves to being shown to be false, and therefore, are not falsifiable. If so, then
how is it that the growth of science appears to result in a growth in knowledge? In Popper's view, the advance
of scientific knowledge is an evolutionary process characterised by his formula:

In response to a given problem situation ( ), a number of competing conjectures, or tentative theories ( ),

are systematically subjected to the most rigorous attempts at falsification possible. This process, error
elimination ( ), performs a similar function for science that natural selection performs for biological
evolution. Theories that better survive the process of refutation are not more true, but rather, more "fit"in
other words, more applicable to the problem situation at hand ( ). Consequently, just as a species' biological
fitness does not ensure continued survival, neither does rigorous testing protect a scientific theory from
refutation in the future. Yet, as it appears that the engine of biological evolution has, over many generations,
produced adaptive traits equipped to deal with more and more complex problems of survival, likewise, the
evolution of theories through the scientific method may, in Popper's view, reflect a certain type of progress:
toward more and more interesting problems ( ). For Popper, it is in the interplay between the tentative
theories (conjectures) and error elimination (refutation) that scientific knowledge advances toward greater and
greater problems; in a process very much akin to the interplay between genetic variation and natural selection.

Falsification/problem of induction

Among his contributions to philosophy is his claim to have solved the philosophical problem of induction. He
states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will rise, it is possible to formulate the theory that every
day the sun will rise; if it does not rise on some particular day, the theory will be falsified and will have to be
replaced by a different one. Until that day, there is no need to reject the assumption that the theory is true. Nor
is it rational according to Popper to make instead the more complex assumption that the sun will rise until a
given day, but will stop doing so the day after, or similar statements with additional conditions.

Such a theory would be true with higher probability, because it cannot be attacked so easily: to falsify the first
one, it is sufficient to find that the sun has stopped rising; to falsify the second one, one additionally needs the
assumption that the given day has not yet been reached. Popper held that it is the least likely, or most easily
falsifiable, or simplest theory (attributes which he identified as all the same thing) that explains known facts
that one should rationally prefer. His opposition to positivism, which held that it is the theory most likely to be
true that one should prefer, here becomes very apparent. It is impossible, Popper argues, to ensure a theory to
be true; it is more important that its falsity can be detected as easily as possible.

Popper and David Hume agreed that there is often a psychological belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, but
both denied that there is logical justification for the supposition that it will, simply because it always has in the
past. Popper writes, "I approached the problem of induction through Hume. Hume, I felt, was perfectly right in
pointing out that induction cannot be logically justified." (Conjectures and Refutations, p. 55)

Rationality

Popper held that rationality is not restricted to the realm of empirical or scientific theories, but that it is merely
a special case of the general method of criticism, the method of finding and eliminating contradictions in
knowledge without ad-hoc-measures. According to this view, rational discussion about metaphysical ideas,
about moral values and even about purposes is possible. Popper's student W.W. Bartley III tried to radicalise
this idea and made the controversial claim that not only can criticism go beyond empirical knowledge, but that
everything can be rationally criticised.

To Popper, who was an anti-justificationist, traditional philosophy is misled by the false principle of sufficient
reason. He thinks that no assumption can ever be or needs ever to be justified, so a lack of justification is not a
justification for doubt. Instead, theories should be tested and scrutinised. It is not the goal to bless theories with
claims of certainty or justification, but to eliminate errors in them. He writes, "there are no such things as good
positive reasons; nor do we need such things [...] But [philosophers] obviously cannot quite bring [themselves]
to believe that this is my opinion, let alone that it is right" (The Philosophy of Karl Popper, p. 1043)

Philosophy of arithmetic

Popper's principle of falsifiability runs into prima facie difficulties when the epistemological status of
mathematics is considered. It is difficult to conceive how simple statements of arithmetic, such as "2 + 2 = 4",
could ever be shown to be false. If they are not open to falsification they can not be scientific. If they are not
scientific, it needs to be explained how they can be informative about real world objects and events.

Popper's solution[36] was an original contribution in the philosophy of mathematics. His idea was that a number
statement such as "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" can be taken in two senses. In one sense it is irrefutable and
logically true, in the second sense it is factually true and falsifiable. Concisely, the pure mathematics "2 + 2 =
4" is always true, but, when the formula is applied to real world apples, it is open to falsification.[37]

Political philosophy

In The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism, Popper developed a critique of
historicism and a defence of the "Open Society". Popper considered historicism to be the theory that history
develops inexorably and necessarily according to knowable general laws towards a determinate end. He argued
that this view is the principal theoretical presupposition underpinning most forms of authoritarianism and
totalitarianism. He argued that historicism is founded upon mistaken assumptions regarding the nature of
scientific law and prediction. Since the growth of human knowledge is a causal factor in the evolution of
human history, and since "no society can predict, scientifically, its own future states of knowledge",[38] it
follows, he argued, that there can be no predictive science of human history. For Popper, metaphysical and
historical indeterminism go hand in hand.

In his early years Popper was impressed by Marxism, whether of Communists or socialists. An event that
happened in 1919 had a profound effect on him: During a riot, caused by the Communists, the police shot
several unarmed people, including some of Popper's friends, when they tried to free party comrades from
prison. The riot had, in fact, been part of a plan by which leaders of the Communist party with connections to
Bla Kun tried to take power by a coup; Popper did not know about this at that time. However, he knew that the
riot instigators were swayed by the Marxist doctrine that class struggle would produce vastly more dead men
than the inevitable revolution brought about as quickly as possible, and so had no scruples to put the life of the
rioters at risk to achieve their selfish goal of becoming the future leaders of the working class. This was the
start of his later criticism of historicism.[39][40] Popper began to reject Marxist historicism, which he associated
with questionable means, and later socialism, which he associated with placing equality before freedom (to the
possible disadvantage of equality).[41]

In 1947, Popper co-founded the Mont Pelerin Society, with Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von
Mises and others, although he did not fully agree with the think tank's charter and ideology. Specifically, he
unsuccessfully recommended that socialists should be invited to participate, and that emphasis should be put on
a hierarchy of humanitarian values rather than advocacy of a free market as envisioned by classical
liberalism.[42]

The paradox of tolerance

Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he said that intolerance should not be tolerated, for if tolerance
allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its
Enemies, he argued:
 Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance
even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the
onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this
formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant
philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by
public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to
suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to
meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid
their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer
arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance,
the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance
places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as
criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the
revival of the slave trade, as criminal.[43][44][45][46]

Metaphysics

Truth

As early as 1934, Popper wrote of the search for truth as "one of the strongest motives for scientific
discovery."[47] Still, he describes in Objective Knowledge (1972) early concerns about the much-criticised
notion of truth as correspondence. Then came the semantic theory of truth formulated by the logician Alfred
Tarski and published in 1933. Popper writes of learning in 1935 of the consequences of Tarski's theory, to his
intense joy. The theory met critical objections to truth as correspondence and thereby rehabilitated it. The
theory also seemed, in Popper's eyes, to support metaphysical realism and the regulative idea of a search for
truth.

According to this theory, the conditions for the truth of a sentence as well as the sentences themselves are part
of a metalanguage. So, for example, the sentence "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white. Although
many philosophers have interpreted, and continue to interpret, Tarski's theory as a deflationary theory, Popper
refers to it as a theory in which "is true" is replaced with "corresponds to the facts". He bases this interpretation
on the fact that examples such as the one described above refer to two things: assertions and the facts to which
they refer. He identifies Tarski's formulation of the truth conditions of sentences as the introduction of a
"metalinguistic predicate" and distinguishes the following cases:

1. "John called" is true.

2. "It is true that John called."

The first case belongs to the metalanguage whereas the second is more likely to belong to the object language.
Hence, "it is true that" possesses the logical status of a redundancy. "Is true", on the other hand, is a predicate
necessary for making general observations such as "John was telling the truth about Phillip."

Upon this basis, along with that of the logical content of assertions (where logical content is inversely
proportional to probability), Popper went on to develop his important notion of verisimilitude or
"truthlikeness". The intuitive idea behind verisimilitude is that the assertions or hypotheses of scientific theories
can be objectively measured with respect to the amount of truth and falsity that they imply. And, in this way,
one theory can be evaluated as more or less true than another on a quantitative basis which, Popper emphasises
forcefully, has nothing to do with "subjective probabilities" or other merely "epistemic" considerations.

The simplest mathematical formulation that Popper gives of this concept can be found in the tenth chapter of
Conjectures and Refutations. Here he defines it as:
where is the verisimilitude of a, is a measure of the content of the truth of a, and is a
measure of the content of the falsity of a.

Popper's original attempt to define not just verisimilitude, but an actual measure of it, turned out to be
inadequate. However, it inspired a wealth of new attempts.[11]

Cosmological pluralism

Knowledge, for Popper, was objective, both in the sense that it is objectively true (or truthlike), and also in the
sense that knowledge has an ontological status (i.e., knowledge as object) independent of the knowing subject
(Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, 1972). He proposed three worlds:[48] World One, being the
physical world, or physical states; World Two, being the world of mind, or mental states, ideas, and
perceptions; and World Three, being the body of human knowledge expressed in its manifold forms, or the
products of the second world made manifest in the materials of the first world (i.e., books, papers, paintings,
symphonies, and all the products of the human mind). World Three, he argued, was the product of individual
human beings in exactly the same sense that an animal path is the product of individual animals, and that, as
such, has an existence and evolution independent of any individual knowing subjects. The influence of World
Three, in his view, on the individual human mind (World Two) is at least as strong as the influence of World
One. In other words, the knowledge held by a given individual mind owes at least as much to the total
accumulated wealth of human knowledge, made manifest, as to the world of direct experience. As such, the
growth of human knowledge could be said to be a function of the independent evolution of World Three. Many
contemporary philosophers, such as Daniel Dennett, have not embraced Popper's Three World conjecture, due
mostly, it seems, to its resemblance to mind-body dualism.

Origin and evolution of life

The creationevolution controversy in the United States raises the issue of whether creationistic ideas may be
legitimately called science and whether evolution itself may be legitimately called science. In the debate, both
sides and even courts in their decisions have frequently invoked Popper's criterion of falsifiability (see Daubert
standard). In this context, passages written by Popper are frequently quoted in which he speaks about such
issues himself. For example, he famously stated "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical research programa possible framework for testable scientific theories." He continued:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge could have grown as
it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments with bacteria which become adapted to,
say, penicillin, it is quite clear that we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection.
Although it is metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical researches.
It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a penicillin-infested environment) in
a rational way: it suggests the existence of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to
study in detail the mechanism at work.[49]

He also noted that theism, presented as explaining adaptation, "was worse than an open admission of failure,
for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached".[50]

Popper later said:

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theorythat is Darwin's own
theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the
mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an
immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of
course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures,
 even those that have successfully passed many severe and varied tests. The Mendelian
underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which
says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even
from one single organism.[50]

In 1974, regarding DNA and the origin of life he said:

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is
without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the
proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But, as Monod points out, the machinery by
which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code
"consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA".
(Monod, 1970;[51] 1971, 143[52]).

Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This
constitutes a really baffling circle; a vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model, or
theory, of the genesis of the genetic code.

Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of the universe)
becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to
chemistry and physics.[53]

He explained that the difficulty of testing had led some people to describe natural selection as a tautology, and
that he too had in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and had tried to explain how the theory
could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest:

My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research
programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an
acceptable solution of these problems. I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a
research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status
of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.[50]

Popper summarized his new view as follows:

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it
is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions,
as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on
which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. Thus not all
phenomena of evolution are explained by natural selection alone. Yet in every particular case it is a
challenging research program to show how far natural selection can possibly be held responsible
for the evolution of a particular organ or behavioural program.[54]

These frequently quoted passages are only a very small part of what Popper wrote on the issue of evolution,
however, and give the wrong impression that he mainly discussed questions of its falsifiability. Popper never
invented this criterion to give justifiable use of words like science. In fact, Popper says at the beginning of
Logic of Scientific Discovery that it is not his aim to define science, and that science can in fact be defined quite
arbitrarily.
Popper had his own sophisticated views on evolution[55] that go much beyond what the frequently-quoted
passages say.[56] In effect, Popper agreed with some of the points of both creationists and naturalists, but also
disagreed with both views on crucial aspects. Popper understood the universe as a creative entity that invents
new things, including life, but without the necessity of something like a god, especially not one who is pulling
strings from behind the curtain. He said that evolution must, as the creationists say, work in a goal-directed
way[57] but disagreed with their view that it must necessarily be the hand of god that imposes these goals onto
the stage of life.

Instead, he formulated the spearhead model of evolution, a version of genetic pluralism. According to this
model, living organisms themselves have goals, and act according to these goals, each guided by a central
control. In its most sophisticated form, this is the brain of humans, but controls also exist in much less
sophisticated ways for species of lower complexity, such as the amoeba. This control organ plays a special role
in evolutionit is the "spearhead of evolution". The goals bring the purpose into the world. Mutations in the
genes that determine the structure of the control may then cause drastic changes in behaviour, preferences and
goals, without having an impact on the organism's phenotype. Popper postulates that such purely behavioural
changes are less likely to be lethal for the organism compared to drastic changes of the phenotype.[58]

Popper contrasts his views with the notion of the "hopeful monster" that has large phenotype mutations and
calls it the "hopeful behavioural monster". After behaviour has changed radically, small but quick changes of
the phenotype follow to make the organism fitter to its changed goals. This way it looks as if the phenotype
were changing guided by some invisible hand, while it is merely natural selection working in combination with
the new behaviour. For example, according to this hypothesis, the eating habits of the giraffe must have
changed before its elongated neck evolved. Popper contrasted this view as "evolution from within" or "active
Darwinism" (the organism actively trying to discover new ways of life and being on a quest for conquering new
ecological niches),[59][60] with the naturalistic "evolution from without" (which has the picture of a hostile
environment only trying to kill the mostly passive organism, or perhaps segregate some of its groups).

Popper was a key figure encouraging patent lawyer Gnter Wchtershuser to publish his Ironsulfur world
theory on abiogenesis and his criticism of "soup" theory.

About the creation-evolution controversy, Popper wrote that he considered it "a somewhat sensational clash
between a brilliant scientific hypothesis concerning the history of the various species of animals and plants on
earth, and an older metaphysical theory which, incidentally, happened to be part of an established religious
belief" with a footnote to the effect that "[he] agree[s] with Professor C.E. Raven when, in his Science,
Religion, and the Future, 1943, he calls this conflict "a storm in a Victorian tea-cup"; though the force of this
remark is perhaps a little impaired by the attention he pays to the vapours still emerging from the cupto the
Great Systems of Evolutionist Philosophy, produced by Bergson, Whitehead, Smuts, and others."[61]

Free will

Popper and John Eccles speculated on the problem of free will for many years, generally agreeing on an
interactionist dualist theory of mind. However, although Popper was a body-mind dualist, he did not think that
the mind is a substance separate from the body: he thought that mental or psychological properties or aspects of
people are distinct from physical ones.[62]

When he gave the second Arthur Holly Compton Memorial Lecture in 1965, Popper revisited the idea of
quantum indeterminacy as a source of human freedom. Eccles had suggested that "critically poised neurons"
might be influenced by the mind to assist in a decision. Popper criticised Compton's idea of amplified quantum
events affecting the decision. He wrote:

The idea that the only alternative to determinism is just sheer chance was taken over by Schlick,
together with many of his views on the subject, from Hume, who asserted that "the removal" of
what he called "physical necessity" must always result in "the same thing with chance. As objects
 must either be conjoin'd or not,... 'tis impossible to admit of any medium betwixt chance and an
absolute necessity".

I shall later argue against this important doctrine according to which the alternative to determinism
is sheer chance. Yet I must admit that the doctrine seems to hold good for the quantum-theoretical
models which have been designed to explain, or at least to illustrate, the possibility of human
freedom. This seems to be the reason why these models are so very unsatisfactory.[63]

Hume's and Schlick's ontological thesis that there cannot exist anything intermediate between
chance and determinism seems to me not only highly dogmatic (not to say doctrinaire) but clearly
absurd; and it is understandable only on the assumption that they believed in a complete
determinism in which chance has no status except as a symptom of our ignorance.[64]

Popper called not for something between chance and necessity but for a combination of randomness and
control to explain freedom, though not yet explicitly in two stages with random chance before the controlled
decision, saying, "freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something
almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control."[65]

Then in his 1977 book with John Eccles, The Self and its Brain, Popper finally formulates the two-stage model
in a temporal sequence. And he compares free will to Darwinian evolution and natural selection:

New ideas have a striking similarity to genetic mutations. Now, let us look for a moment at genetic
mutations. Mutations are, it seems, brought about by quantum theoretical indeterminacy (including
radiation effects). Accordingly, they are also probabilistic and not in themselves originally selected
or adequate, but on them there subsequently operates natural selection which eliminates
inappropriate mutations. Now we could conceive of a similar process with respect to new ideas and
to free-will decisions, and similar things.

That is to say, a range of possibilities is brought about by a probabilistic and quantum mechanically
characterised set of proposals, as it wereof possibilities brought forward by the brain. On these
there then operates a kind of selective procedure which eliminates those proposals and those
possibilities which are not acceptable to the mind.[66]

Religion and God

In an interview[30] that Popper gave in 1969 with the condition that it should be kept secret until after his death,
he summarised his position on God as follows: "I don't know whether God exists or not. ... Some forms of
atheism are arrogant and ignorant and should be rejected, but agnosticismto admit that we don't know and to
searchis all right. ... When I look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some
religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something
wrong to God in talking about God." He objected to organised religion, saying "it tends to use the name of God
in vain", noting the danger of fanaticism because of religious conflicts: "The whole thing goes back to myths
which, though they may have a kernel of truth, are untrue. Why then should the Jewish myth be true and the
Indian and Egyptian myths not be true?" In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude:
"Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes
honestly."[7][67][68]
Influence
Popper played a vital role in establishing the philosophy of science as a
vigorous, autonomous discipline within philosophy, through his own
prolific and influential works, and also through his influence on his own
contemporaries and students. Popper founded in 1946 the Department
of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method at the London School of
Economics and there lectured and influenced both Imre Lakatos and
Paul Feyerabend, two of the foremost philosophers of science in the
next generation of philosophy of science. (Lakatos significantly
modified Popper's position,[69]:1 and Feyerabend repudiated it entirely,
but the work of both is deeply influenced by Popper and engaged with
many of the problems that Popper set.)

Sir Karl Popper in 1990 While there is some dispute as to the matter of influence, Popper had a
long-standing and close friendship with economist Friedrich Hayek,
who was also brought to the London School of Economics from Vienna.
Each found support and similarities in the other's work, citing each other often, though not without
qualification. In a letter to Hayek in 1944, Popper stated, "I think I have learnt more from you than from any
other living thinker, except perhaps Alfred Tarski."[70] Popper dedicated his Conjectures and Refutations to
Hayek. For his part, Hayek dedicated a collection of papers, Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, to
Popper, and in 1982 said, "...ever since his Logik der Forschung first came out in 1934, I have been a complete
adherent to his general theory of methodology."[71]

Popper also had long and mutually influential friendships with art historian Ernst Gombrich, biologist Peter
Medawar, and neuroscientist John Carew Eccles. The German jurist Reinhold Zippelius uses Popper's method
of "trial and error" in his legal philosophy.[72]

Popper's influence, both through his work in philosophy of science and through his political philosophy, has
also extended beyond the academy. One of Popper's students at the London School of Economics was George
Soros, who later became a billionaire investor, and among whose philanthropic foundations is the Open Society
Institute, a think-tank named in honour of Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies.[73]

Criticism
Most criticisms of Popper's philosophy are of the falsification, or error elimination, element in his account of
problem solving. Popper presents falsifiability as both an ideal and as an important principle in a practical
method of effective human problem solving; as such, the current conclusions of science are stronger than
pseudo-sciences or non-sciences, insofar as they have survived this particularly vigorous selection method.

He does not argue that any such conclusions are therefore true, or that this describes the actual methods of any
particular scientist. Rather, it is recommended as an essential principle of methodology that, if enacted by a
system or community, will lead to slow but steady progress of a sort (relative to how well the system or
community enacts the method). It has been suggested that Popper's ideas are often mistaken for a hard logical
account of truth because of the historical co-incidence of their appearing at the same time as logical positivism,
the followers of which mistook his aims for their own.[74]

The Quine-Duhem thesis argues that it's impossible to test a single hypothesis on its own, since each one comes
as part of an environment of theories. Thus we can only say that the whole package of relevant theories has
been collectively falsified, but cannot conclusively say which element of the package must be replaced. An
example of this is given by the discovery of the planet Neptune: when the motion of Uranus was found not to
match the predictions of Newton's laws, the theory "There are seven planets in the solar system" was rejected,
and not Newton's laws themselves. Popper discussed this critique of nave falsificationism in Chapters 3 and 4
of The Logic of Scientific Discovery. For Popper, theories are accepted or rejected via a sort of selection
process. Theories that say more about the way things appear are to be preferred over those that do not; the more
generally applicable a theory is, the greater its value. Thus Newton's laws, with their wide general application,
are to be preferred over the much more specific "the solar system has seven planets".

Thomas Kuhn, in his influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, argued that scientists work in a
series of paradigms, and that falsificationist methodologies would make science impossible:

No theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the
solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and
imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of the puzzles that
characterize normal science. If any and every failure to fit were ground for theory rejection, all
theories ought to be rejected at all times. On the other hand, if only severe failure to fit justifies
theory rejection, then the Popperians will require some criterion of "improbability" or of "degree of
falsification". In developing one they will almost certainly encounter the same network of
difficulties that has haunted the advocates of the various probabilistic verification theories [that the
evaluative theory cannot itself be legitimated without appeal to another evaluative theory, leading
to regress][75]

Popper's student Imre Lakatos attempted to reconcile Kuhn's work with falsificationism by arguing that science
progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of nave
falsificationism. Another of Popper's students Paul Feyerabend ultimately rejected any prescriptive
methodology, and argued that the only universal method characterising scientific progress was anything goes.

Popper claimed to have recognised already in the 1934 version of his Logic of Discovery a fact later stressed by
Kuhn, "that scientists necessarily develop their ideas within a definite theoretical framework", and to that extent
to have anticipated Kuhn's central point about "normal science".[76] (But Popper criticised what he saw as
Kuhn's relativism.[77]) Also, in his collection Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
(Harper & Row, 1963), Popper writes, "Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither
with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of
myths, and of magical techniques and practices. The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific
tradition in having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude
towards them. The theories are passed on, not as dogmas, but rather with the challenge to discuss them and
improve upon them."

Another objection is that it is not always possible to demonstrate falsehood definitively, especially if one is
using statistical criteria to evaluate a null hypothesis. More generally it is not always clear, if evidence
contradicts a hypothesis, that this is a sign of flaws in the hypothesis rather than of flaws in the evidence.
However, this is a misunderstanding of what Popper's philosophy of science sets out to do. Rather than offering
a set of instructions that merely need to be followed diligently to achieve science, Popper makes it clear in The
Logic of Scientific Discovery that his belief is that the resolution of conflicts between hypotheses and
observations can only be a matter of the collective judgment of scientists, in each individual case.[78]

In a book called Science Versus Crime, Houck writes[79] that Popper's falsificationism can be questioned
logically: it is not clear how Popper would deal with a statement like "for every metal, there is a temperature at
which it will melt." The hypothesis cannot be falsified by any possible observation, for there will always be a
higher temperature than tested at which the metal may in fact melt, yet it seems to be a valid scientific
hypothesis. These examples were pointed out by Carl Gustav Hempel. Hempel came to acknowledge that
Logical Positivism's verificationism was untenable, but argued that falsificationism was equally untenable on
logical grounds alone. The simplest response to this is that, because Popper describes how theories attain,
maintain and lose scientific status, individual consequences of currently accepted scientific theories are
scientific in the sense of being part of tentative scientific knowledge, and both of Hempel's examples fall under
this category. For instance, atomic theory implies that all metals melt at some temperature.
An early adversary of Popper's critical rationalism, Karl-Otto Apel attempted a comprehensive refutation of
Popper's philosophy. In Transformation der Philosophie (1973), Apel charged Popper with being guilty of,
amongst other things, a pragmatic contradiction.[80]

Charles Taylor accuses Popper of exploiting his worldwide fame as an epistemologist to diminish the
importance of philosophers of the 20th century continental tradition. According to Taylor, Popper's criticisms
are completely baseless, but they are received with an attention and respect that Popper's "intrinsic worth hardly
merits".[81]

In 2004, philosopher and psychologist Michel ter Hark (Groningen, The Netherlands) published a book, called
Popper, Otto Selz and the rise of evolutionary epistemology, in which he claimed that Popper took some of his
ideas from his tutor, the German psychologist Otto Selz. Selz never published his ideas, partly because of the
rise of Nazism, which forced him to quit his work in 1933, and the prohibition of referring to Selz' work.
Popper, the historian of ideas and his scholarship, is criticised in some academic quarters for his rejection of
Plato, Hegel and Marx.[82]

According to John N. Gray, Popper held that "a theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should
be given up as soon as it is falsified."[83] By applying Popper's account of scientific method, Gray's Straw Dogs
states that this would have "killed the theories of Darwin and Einstein at birth." When they were first advanced,
Gray claims, each of them was "at odds with some available evidence; only later did evidence become available
that gave them crucial support."[83] Against this, Gray seeks to establish the irrationalist thesis that "the
progress of science comes from acting against reason."[83]

Gray does not, however, give any indication of what available evidence these theories were at odds with, and
his appeal to "crucial support" illustrates the very inductivist approach to science that Popper sought to show
was logically illegitimate. For, according to Popper, Einstein's theory was at least equally as well corroborated
as Newton's upon its initial conception; they both equally well accounted for all the hitherto available evidence.
Moreover, since Einstein also explained the empirical refutations of Newton's theory, general relativity was
immediately deemed suitable for tentative acceptance on the Popperian account.[84] Indeed, Popper wrote,
several decades before Gray's criticism, in reply to a critical essay by Imre Lakatos:

It is true that I have used the terms "elimination", and even "rejection" when discussing
"refutation". But it is clear from my main discussion that these terms mean, when applied to a
scientific theory, that it is eliminated as a contender for the truththat is, refuted, but not
necessarily abandoned. Moreover, I have often pointed out that any such refutation is fallible. It is
a typical matter of conjecture and of risk-taking whether or not we accept a refutation and,
furthermore, of whether we "abandon" a theory or, say, only modify it, or even stick to it, and try to
find some alternative, and methodologically acceptable, way round the problem involved. That I
do not conflate even admitted falsity with the need to abandon a theory may be seen from the fact
that I have frequently pointed out, that Einstein regarded general relativity as false, yet as a better
approximation to the truth than Newton's gravitational theory. He certainly did not "abandon" it.
But he worked to the end of his life in an attempt to improve upon it by way of a further
generalization.[85]

Bibliography
The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theoryof Knowledge, 193033 (as a typescript circulating asDie beiden
Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie; as a German book 1979, as English translation 2008),ISBN 0-415-39431-7
The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (as Logik der Forschung, English translation 1959),ISBN 0-415-27844-9
The Poverty of Historicism, 1936 (private reading at a meeting in Brussels, 1944/45 as a series of journal articles in
Econometrica, 1957 a book), ISBN 0-415-06569-0
The Open Society and Its Enemies, 1945 Vol 1 ISBN 0-415-29063-5, Vol 2 ISBN 0-415-29063-5
 Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, 1956/57 (as privately circulated galley proofs; published as a book 1982),
ISBN 0-415-09112-8
The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism, 1956/57 (as privately circulated galley proofs; published as a book
1982), ISBN 0-415-07865-2
Realism and the Aim of Science, 1956/57 (as privately circulated galley proofs; published as a book 1983), ISBN 0-09-
151450-9
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1963, ISBN 0-415-04318-2
Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Appr oach, 1972, Rev. ed., 1979, ISBN 0-19-875024-2
Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography , 2002 [1976]. ISBN 0-415-28589-5 (ISBN 0-415-28590-9)
The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (with Sir John C. Eccles), 1977,ISBN 0-415-05898-8
In Search of a Better World, 1984, ISBN 0-415-13548-6
Die Zukunft ist offen(The Future is Open) (with Konrad Lorenz), 1985 (in German),ISBN 3-492-00640-X
A World of Propensities, 1990, ISBN 1-85506-000-0
The Lesson of this Century, (Interviewer: Giancarlo Bosetti, English translation: Patrick Camiller), 1992,ISBN 0-415-
12958-3
All life is Problem Solving, 1994, ISBN 0-415-24992-9
The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality(edited by Mark Amadeus Notturno) 1994.ISBN 0-
415-13555-9
Knowledge and the Mind-Body Problem: In Defence of Interaction(edited by Mark Amadeus Notturno) 1994ISBN 0-
415-11504-3
The World of Parmenides, Essays on the Presocratic Enlightenment, 1998, (Edited by Arne.FPetersen with the
assistance of Jrgen Mejer), ISBN 0-415-17301-9
After The Open Society, 2008. (Edited by Jeremy Shearmur and Piers Norris uTrner, this volume contains a large
number of Popper's previously unpublished or uncollected writings on political and social themes.) ISBN 978-0-415-
30908-0
Frhe Schriften, 2006 (Edited by Troels Eggers Hansen, includes Popper's writings and publications fromefore b the
Logic, including his previously unpublished thesis, dissertation and journal articles published that relate to theiener
W
Schulreform) ISBN 978-3-16-147632-7

See also
Calculus of predispositions
Contributions to liberal theory
Critique of psychoanalysis
Evolutionary epistemology
Liberalism in Austria
Popper legend
Positivism dispute
Predispositioning theory
Poper Scientific Stand up

References
1. Thornton, Stephen (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N., ed.Karl Popper (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/
popper/) (Winter 2015 ed.). ("Popper professes to be anti-conventionalist, and his commitment to the correspondence
theory of truth places him firmly within the realist's camp.")
2. "Cartesianism (philosophy): Contemporary influences"(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/97342/Cartesianis
m/43348/Contemporary-influences)in Britannica Online Encyclopedia
3. Hacohen, Malachi Haim. Karl Popper The Formative eYars, 19021945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar V ienna.
Cambridge University Press, 2000. pp. 8385.
4. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1970 (2nd
ed.), p. 146.
5. Michael Redhead, From Physics to Metaphysics, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 15.
6. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press, 1994.
7. Miller, D. (1997). "Sir Karl Raimund Popper, C. H., F. B. A. 28 July 1902 17 September 1994.: Elected .FR.S. 1976".
Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society . 43: 369310. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1997.0021(https://doi.org/10.10
98%2Frsbm.1997.0021).
8. Watkins, J. (1996). "Obituary of Karl Popper, 19021994". Proceedings of the British Academy. 94: 645 (https://academ
ic.oup.com/bjps/article-abstract/45/4/1089/1581819/Karl-Popper -1902-1994)84.
 9. Karl Popper (190294) advocated by Andrew Marr(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/greatest_philosophe
r_karl_popper.shtml) BBC In Our Time Greatest Philosopher, Retrieved Jan 2015
10. Adams, I.; Dyson, R.W., Fifty Major Political Thinkers(https://books.google.com/books?id=pirwOBYt9nsC&pg=P A19
6&dq=Karl+Popper+british+citizen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9ge4VMmSN4nyUv2Sg7AO&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=onepag
e&q=Karl%20Popper%20british%20citizen&f=false) , Routledge, 2007, p. 196. "He became a British citizen in 1945".
11. Thornton, Stephen (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N., ed.Karl Popper (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/
popper/) (Winter 2015 ed.).
12. Horgan, J (1992). "Profile: Karl R. Popper The Intellectual W arrior". Scientific American. 267 (5): 3844.
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1192-38 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientificamerican1192-38).
13. Shea, B. "Popper, Karl: Philosophy of Science"(http://www.iep.utm.edu/pop-sci/), in Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, James Feiser (ed.) and Bradley Dowden (ed.). Retrieved 10 Feb 2016.
14. William W. Bartley: Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality(http://www.the-rathouse.com/2008/Bartley1964CCR.
html), In Mario Bunge: The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy (The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964), section IX.
15. "Karl Popper: Political Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]" (http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/#SH2d).
Iep.utm.edu. 2 August 2013. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
16. Malachi Haim Hacohen.Karl Popper The Formative Years, 19021945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar iVenna.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. pp. 10 & 23,ISBN 0-521-47053-6
17. Magee, Bryan. The Story of Philosophy. New York: DK Publishing, 2001. p. 221, ISBN 0-7894-3511-X
18. "Eichsttter Karl Popper-Seite" (http://www.helmut-zenz.de/hzpoppe6.html). Helmut-zenz.de. Retrieved 21 December
2012.
19. Karl Popper: Kritischer Rationalismus und Verteidigung der offenen Gesellschaft.In Josef Rattner, Gerhard Danzer
(Eds.): Europisches sterreich: Literatur- und geistesgeschichtliche Essays ber den Zeitraum 18001980 , p. 293
20. Karl R. Popper ([1976] 2002.Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography , p. 6 (https://books.google.com/books?hl=
en&lr=&id=F_2WSLsDyvwC&oi=fnd&pg=P A6&ots=l6Z_iN-MFk&sig=R_sz7TKQbZmT v4r0m_Cc-L8mw8g#v=one
page&q&f=false).
21. Raphael, F. The Great Philosophers London: Phoenix, p. 447,ISBN 0-7538-1136-7
22. Manfred Lube: Karl R. Popper Die Bibliothek des Philosophen als Spiegel seines Lebens (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20070607075701/http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ub/dokumente/Popper_Imprimatur .pdf). Imprimatur. Ein Jahrbuch fr
Bcherfreunde. Neue Folge Band 18(2003), S. 20738,ISBN 3-447-04723-2.
23. "Cf. Thomas Sturm: "Bhler and Popper: Kantian therapies for the crisis in psychology ," in: Studies in History and
Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences , 43 (2012), pp. 46272"(http://www.univie.ac.at/ubwdb/data/ska/m0
01/z017/h065/a0166412.gif). Retrieved 21 December 2012.
24. A. C. Ewing was responsible for Karl Popper's 1936 invitation toCambridge (Edmonds and Eidinow 2001, p. 67).
25. "Sir Karl Popper Is Dead at 92. Philosopher of 'Open Society ' " (https://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/18/obituaries/sir-karl
-popper-is-dead-at-92-philosopher-of-open-society.html). New York Times. 18 September 1994. Retrieved 15 November
2012. "Sir Karl Popper, a philosopher who was a defender of democratic systems of government,ied d today in a
hospital here. He was 92. He died of complications of cancer , pneumonia and kidney failure, said a manager at the
hospital in this London suburb."
26. "Opensociety.de" (http://www.opensociety.de/Web1/Popper/popper02_e.htm). Opensociety.de. Retrieved 12 August
2014.
27. "David Miller" (http://fs1.law.keio.ac.jp/~popper/v6n2miller.html). Fs1.law.keio.ac.jp. 17 September 1994. Retrieved
21 December 2012.
28. Sir Karl Popper (https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6663)at Find a Grave
29. "The Karl Popper Charitable Trust" (http://opencharities.org/charities/1059495). OpenCharities. 10 September 2012.
Retrieved 21 December 2012.
30. Edward Zerin: Karl Popper On God: The Lost Interview . Skeptic 6:2 (1998)
31. "The International Academy of Humanism"(http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=iah&page=index).
Secularhumanism.org. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
32. "London Gazette" (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/43592/pages/2239) . 5 March 1965. p. 22. Retrieved
1 December 2012.
33. "London Gazette" (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/49008/supplements/5) . 12 June 1982. p. 5. Retrieved
1 December 2012.
34. "Karl Raimund Popper"(http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k08_c_karl/prf_e.html). Inamori Foundation. Retrieved
9 June 2012.
35. One of the severest critics of Popper's so-called demarcation thesis was Adolf Grnbaum, 'Is Falsifiability the
Touchstone of Scientific Rationality?' (1976), and 'The Degeneration of Popper's Theory of Demarcation' (1989), both in
his Collected Works (edited by Thomas Kupka), vol. I, New Y ork: Oxford University Press 2013, ch. 1 (pp. 942) & ch.
2 (pp. 4361)
36. Popper, Karl Raimund (1946) Aristotelian Society Supplementary oVlume XX.
37. Gregory, Frank Hutson (1996)Arithmetic and Reality: A Development of Popper's Ideas . City University of Hong
Kong. Republished in Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal No. 26 (December 201 1).
38. The Poverty of Historicism, p. 21
39. Hacohen, p. 82 (https://books.google.com/books?id=3VtHcYGp2pIC&pg=P A82). Books.google.com. Retrieved
12 August 2014.
40. Popper, K., All Life is Problem Solving, Routledge, 2013, Ch. 12(https://books.google.com/books?id=W0jP04qn0uoC
&pg=PA126&dq=popper+communism+1992&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ly9U9LcM42O7QbnlICI DA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAg#
v=onepage&q=popper%20communism%201992&f=false) . Books.google.co.uk. 15 April 2013. Retrieved 12 August
2014.
41. Popper, Karl R. ([1976] 2002).Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography , pp. 32 -37 (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?hl=en&lr=&id=F_2WSLsDyvwC&oi=fnd&pg=P A332&ots=l6Z_iN-MFk&sig=R_sz7TKQbZmTv4r0m_Cc-L8mw
8g#v=onepage&q&f=false)
42. "Popper argued that some socialists ought to be invited to participate", "W ell I do believe that in a way one has to have a
free market, but I also believe that to make a godhead out of the principle of the free market is nonsense ... [the free
market] is not of a fundamental importance.Humanitarianism, that is of fundamental importance" Daniel Stedman
Jones: Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics, pp. 40f. f
43. The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Platoby Karl Raimund Popper, Volume 1, 1947, George Routledge &
sons, ltd., p. 226, Notes to chapter 7:https://archive.org/details/opensocietyandit033120mbp,
44. The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato , by Karl Raimund Popper, Princeton University Press, 1971,
ISBN 0-691-01968-1, p. 265
45. The Open Society And Its Enemies, Complete: oVlumes I and II, Karl R. Popper, 1962, Fifth edition (revised), 1966,
(PDF (https://archive.org/details/OpenSocietyAndItsEnemies))
46. The Open Society and Its Enemies, p. 581 (https://books.google.com/books?id=_M_E5QczOBAC&pg=P A581)
47. "Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty, part 1: a rejection of empiricism"(https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/20
12/sep/10/karl-popper-enemy-uncertainty). The Guardian. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
48. Karl Popper, Three Worlds, The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, The University of Michigan, 1978.
49. Unended Quest ch. 37 see Bibliography
50. "CA211.1: Popper on natural selection's testability" (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html).
talk.origins. 2 November 2005. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
51. Le Hasard et la Ncessit. Editions du Seuil, Paris.
52. Chance and Necessity. Knopf, New York
53. Studies in the Philosophy of Biology: Reduction and Related Pr oblems Google Books(https://books.google.com/book
s?id=NMAf65cDmAQC&pg=PA270). Books.google.com. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
54. Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge Gerar d Radnitzky Google Books(https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=QnFiTrCzg5oC&pg=PA145). Books.google.com. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
55. Niemann, Hans-Joachim: Karl Popper and the T wo New Secrets of Life: Including Karl Popper's Medawar Lecture 1986
and Three Related Texts. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014.ISBN 978-3161532078.
56. For a secondary source see H. Keuth:The philosophy of Karl Popper, section 15.3 "World 3 and emergent evolution".
See also John Watkins: Popper and Darwinism. The Power of Argumentation (Ed Enrique Surez Iiguez). Primary
sources are, especiallyObjective Knowledge: An evolutionary appr oach, section "Evolution and the Tree of
Knowledge", and Evolutionary epistemology(Eds. G. Radnitzsky, W.W. Bartley), section "Natural selection and the
emergence of mind", In search of a better world, section "Knowledge and the shaping of rationality: the search for a
better world", p. 16,Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of Interaction, section "World 3 and emergent
evolution", A world of propensities, section "Towards an evolutionary theory of knowledge",The Self and Its Brain: An
Argument for Interactionism(with John C. Eccles), sections "The biological approach to human knowledge and
intelligence" and "The biological function of conscious and intelligent activity".
57. D. W. Miller: Karl Popper, a scientific memoir. Out of Error, p. 33
58. K. Popper: Objective Knowledge, section "Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge", subsection "Addendum. The Hopeful
Behavioural Monster" (p. 281)
59. "Philosophical confusion? Science Frontiers"(http://www.science-frontiers.com/philosophical-confusion.htm) .
Science-frontiers.com. 2 October 1986. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
60. Michel Ter Hark: Popper, Otto Selz and the Rise Of Evolutionary Epistemology , pp. 184 ff
61. Karl R. Popper, The Poverty of Historicism, p. 97
62. Popper, K. R. "Of Clouds and Clocks," in his Objective Knowledge, corrected edition, pp.0655, 2 Oxford, Oxford
University Press (1973), p. 231 footnote 43, & p. 252; also Popper , K. R. "Natural Selection and the Emergence of
Mind" (http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/natural_selection_and_the_emer gence_o
f_mind.html), 1977.
63. Popper, K. R. "Of Clouds and Clocks," in:Objective Knowledge, corrected edition, p. 227, Oxford, Oxford University
Press (1973). Popper's Hume quote is fromTreatise on Human Understanding, (see note 8) Book I, Part I, Section XIV ,
p. 171
64. Of Clouds and Clocks, in Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Appr oach, Oxford (1972) pp. 227 f .
65. ibid, p. 232
66. Eccles, John C. and Karl Popper. The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism, Routledge (1984)
 67. Popper archives fasc. 297.11
68. See also Karl Popper: On freedom.All life is problem solving (1999), chapter 7, pp. 81 f
69. Kadvany, John (2001). Imre Lakatos and the Guises of Reason(https://books.google.com/books?id=ih_muDscIY8C&pg
=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Imre+Lakatos+and+the+Guises+of+Reason&source=bl&ots=lBvkMQ7pVT&sig=lRlNG1IbM-M
lIYn-r74o8YbbN4M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjil6yp8L3KAhXJKGMKHfP_CfMQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=I
mre%20Lakatos%20and%20the%20Guises%20of%20Reason&f=false) . Duke University Press Books. p. 400.
ISBN 978-0-8223-2660-1. Retrieved 22 January 2016.Site on Lakatos/Popper John Kadvany,PhD (http://www.johnkad
vany.com/GettingStarted/Kadvany_Design/Assets/LakatosPage/Lakatos_Frameset_3.htm)
70. Hacohen, 2000
71. Weimer and Palermo, 1982
72. Reinhold Zippelius,Die experimentierende Methode im Recht, 1991 (ISBN 3-515-05901-6), and Rechtsphilosophie, 6th
ed., 2011 (ISBN 978-3-406-61191-9)
73. Soros, George (2006). The Age of Fallibility. NY: Public Affairs. pp. 1618.
74. Bryan Magee 1973: Popper (Modern Masters series)
75. Kuhn, Thomas (1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
76. K R Popper (1970), "Normal Science and its Dangers", pp. 5158 in I Lakatos & A Musgrave (eds.) (1970), at p. 51 (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=Vutfm5n6LKYC&pg=PA51).
77. K R Popper (1970), in I Lakatos & A Musgrave (eds.) (1970), atp. 56 (https://books.google.com/books?id=V utfm5n6L
KYC&pg=PA56).
78. Popper, Karl, (1934) Logik der Forschung, Springer. Vienna. Amplified English edition, Popper (1959),ISBN 0-415-
27844-9
79. Houck, Max M., Science Versus Crime, Infobase Publishing, 2009,p. 65 (https://books.google.com/books/about/Science
_Versus_Crime.html?id=z4UFw18Lwy0C)
80. See: "Apel, Karl-Otto,"La philosophie de A a Z, by Elizabeth Clement, Chantal Demonque, Laurence Hansen-Love,
and Pierre Kahn, Paris, 1994, Hatier, 1920. See Also: Towards a Transformation of Philosophy (Marquette Studies in
Philosophy, No 20), by Karl-Otto Apel, trans., Glyn Adey and David Fisby , Milwaukee, 1998, Marquette University
Press.
81. Taylor, Charles, "Overcoming Epistemology", inPhilosophical Arguments, Harvard University Press, 1995,ISBN 0-
674-66477-9
82. See: "Popper is committing a serious historical error in attributing the or ganic theory of the state to Plato and accusing
him of all the fallacies of post-Hegelian and Marxist historicismthe theory that history is controlled by the inexorable
laws governing the behavior of superindividual social entities of which human beings and their free choices are merely
subordinate manifestations."Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law , by John Wild, Chicago, 1964,
The University of Chicago Press, 23. See Also: "In spite of the high rating one must accord his initial intention of
fairness, his hatred for the enemies of the 'open society
,' his zeal to destroy whatever seemsto him destructive of the
welfare of mankind, has led him into the extensive use of what may be called terminological counterpropaganda ..." and
"With a few exceptions in Popper's favor, however, it is noticeable that reviewers possessedof special competence in
particular fieldsand here Lindsay is again to be includedhave objected to Popper's conclusions in those very fields
..." and "Social scientists and social philosophers have deplored his radical denial of historical causation, together with
his espousal of Hayek's systematic distrust of lar
ger programs of social reform; historical students of philosophy have
protested his violent polemical handling of Plato, Aristotle, and particularly Hegel; ethicists have found contradictions in
the ethical theory ('critical dualism') upon which his polemic is largely based." In Defense of Plato, by Ronald B.
Levinson, New York, 1970, Russell and Russell, 20.
83. Gray, John (2002). Straw Dogs. Granta Books, London. p. 22.ISBN 1-86207-512-3.
84. Karl Popper, "Replies to my Critics,"The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Paul A. Schilpp, ed., v. II. (http://www.opencourtb
ooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm)Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151204150904/http://www.o
pencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm)4 December 2015 at theWayback Machine. Open Court,
London, 1974.
85. Karl Popper, "Replies to my Critics,"The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Paul A. Schilpp, ed., v. 2, p. 1009. (http://www.op
encourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm)Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151204150904/htt
p://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm)4 December 2015 at theWayback Machine. Open
Court, London, 1974.

Further reading
Lube, Manfred. Karl R. Popper. Bibliographie 19252004. Wissenschaftstheorie, Sozialphilosophie, Logik,
Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, Naturwissenschaften . Frankfurt/Main etc.: Peter Lang, 2005. 576 pp. (Schriftenreihe der
Karl Popper Foundation Klagenfurt.3.) Current
( edition)
Gattei, Stefano. Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science. 2009.
Miller, David. Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence. 1994.
David Miller (Ed.).Popper Selections.
Watkins, John W. N.. Science and Scepticism.Preface & Contents. Princeton 1984 (Princeton University Press).ISBN
978-0-09-158010-0
Jarvie, Ian Charles, Karl Milford, David W. Miller, ed. (2006). Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment, Ashgate.

Volume I: Life and Times, and Values in a World of Facts. Description & Contents.
Volume II: Metaphysics and EpistemologyDescription & Contents.
Volume III: Science. Description & Contents.

Bailey, Richard, Education in the Open Society: Karl Popper and Schooling . Aldershot, UK: Ashgate 2000. The only
book-length examination of Popper's relevance to education.
Bartley, William Warren III. Unfathomed Knowledge, Unmeasured Wealth. La Salle, IL: Open Court Press 1990. A look
at Popper and his influence by one of his students.
Berkson, William K., and Wettersten, John. Learning from Error: Karl Popper's Psychology of Learning. La Salle, IL:
Open Court 1984
Cornforth, Maurice.(1977): The open philosophy and the open society, 2., (rev.) ed., Lawrence & Wishart, London.
ISBN 0-85315-384-1. The fundamental critique from the Marxist standpoint.
Edmonds, D., Eidinow, J. Wittgenstein's Poker. New York: Ecco 2001. A review of the origin of the conflict between
Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, focused on events leading up to their volatile first encounter at 1946 Cambridge
meeting.
Feyerabend, Paul Against Method. London: New Left Books, 1975. A polemical, iconoclastic book by a former
colleague of Popper's. Vigorously critical of Popper's rationalist view of science.
Hacohen, M. Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 19021945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hickey, J. Thomas. History of the Twentieth-Century Philosophy of ScienceBook V, Karl Popper And Falsificationist
Criticism. www.philsci.com . 1995
Kadvany, John Imre Lakatos and the Guises of Reason. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2001.ISBN 0-
8223-2659-0. Explains how Imre Lakatos developed Popper's philosophy into a historicist and critical theory of
scientific method.
Keuth, Herbert. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. An accurate scholarly
overview of Popper's philosophy, ideal for students.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Central to
contemporary philosophy of science is the debate between the followers of Kuhn and Popper on the nature of scientific
enquiry. This is the book in which Kuhn's views received their classical statement.
Lakatos, I & Musgrave, A (eds.) (1970),Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge (Cambridge University
Press). ISBN 0-521-07826-1
Levinson, Paul, ed. In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the Philosophy of Karl Popper on the Occasion of his 80thirthday.
B
Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1982.ISBN 0-391-02609-7 A collection of essays on Popper's thought and
legacy by a wide range of his followers. W ith forewords by Isaac Asimov and Helmut Schm idt. Includes an interview
with Sir Ernst Gombrich.
Lindh, Allan Goddard (11 November 1993). "Did Popper solve Hume's problem?".Nature. 366 (6451): 10506.
Bibcode:1993Natur.366..105G. doi:10.1038/366105a0.
Magee, Bryan. Popper. London: Fontana, 1977. An elegant introductory text. eVry readable, albeit rather uncritical of
its subject, by a former Member of Parliament.
Magee, Bryan. Confessions of a Philosopher, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1997. Magee's philosophical autobiography,
with a chapter on his relations with Popper . More critical of Popper than in the previous refe
rence.
Munz, Peter. Beyond Wittgenstein's Poker: New Light on Popper and W ittgenstein Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate,
2004. ISBN 0-7546-4016-7. Written by the only living student of both W ittgenstein and Popper, an eyewitness to the
famous "poker" incident described above (Edmunds & Eidinow). Attempts to synthesize and reconcile the ferences dif
between these two philosophers.
Niemann, Hans-Joachim. Lexikon des Kritischen Rationalismus, (Encyclopaedia of Critical Raionalism), Tbingen
(Mohr Siebeck) 2004,ISBN 3-16-148395-2. More than a thousand headwords about critical rationalism, the most
important arguments of K.R. Popper and H. Albert, quotations of the original wording. Edit ion for students in 2006,
ISBN 3-16-149158-0.
Notturno, Mark Amadeus. "Objectivity , Rationality, and the Third Realm: Justification and the Grounds of
Psychologism". Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985.
Notturno, Mark Amadeus.On Popper. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. 2003. A very comprehensive book on Popper's
philosophy by an accomplished Popperian.
Notturno, Mark Amadeus. "Science and the Open Society". New ork: Y CEU Press, 2000.
O'Hear, Anthony. Karl Popper. London: Routledge, 1980. A critical account of Popper's thought, viewed from the
perspective of contemporary analytic philosophy .
Parusnikov, Zuzana & Robert S. Cohen (2009).Rethinking Popper. Description and contents. Springer.
 Radnitzky, Gerard, Bartley, W. W. III eds. Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality, and the Sociology of Knowledge.
LaSalle, IL: Open Court Press 1987.ISBN 0-8126-9039-7. A strong collection of essays by Popper,Campbell, Munz,
Flew, et al., on Popper's epistemology and critical rationalism. Includes a particularly vigorous answer to Rorty's
criticisms.
Richmond, Sheldon.Aesthetic Criteria: Gombrich and the Philosophies of Science of Popper and Polanyi . Rodopi,
Amsterdam/Atlanta, 1994, 152 pp.ISBN 90-5183-618-X.
Rowbottom, Darrell P. Popper's Critical Rationalism: A Philosophical Investigation . London: Routledge, 2010. A
research monograph on Popper's philosophy of science and epistemology . It critiques and develops critical rationalism
in light of more recent advances in mainstream philosophy .
Schilpp, Paul A., ed. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Description and contents. Chicago, IL: Open Court Press, 1974.
One of the better contributions to theLibrary of Living Philosophersseries. Contains Popper's intellectual
autobiography (v. I, pp. 2184, also as a1976 book), a comprehensive range of critical essays, and Popper's responses to
them. ISBN 0-87548-141-8 (vol.I). ISBN 0-87548-142-6 (Vol II)
Schroeder-Heister, P. "Popper, Karl Raimund (190294)," International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral
Sciences, 2001, pp. 1172711733. Abstract.
Shearmur, Jeremy. The Political Thought of Karl Popper. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Study of Popper's
political thought by a former assistant of Popper's. Makes use of archive sources and studies the development of
Popper's political thought and its inter-connections with his epistemology.
Shearmur, Jeremy (2008). "Karl Popper (19021994)". In Hamowy, Ronald. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism.
Thousand Oaks, CA:SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 38081. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151.
OCLC 750831024. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n234.
Stokes, G. Popper: Philosophy, Politics and Scientific Method. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998. A very comprehensive,
balanced study, which focuses largely on the social and political side of Popper's thought.
Stove, D.C., Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon. 1982. A vigorous attack, especially on
Popper's restricting himself to deductive logic.
Tausch, Arno. Towards New Maps of Global Human Values, Based on World Values Survey (6) Data (March 31, 2015).
Available at SSRN: doi:10.2139/ssrn.2587626
Thornton, Stephen."Karl Popper," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006.
Weimer, W., Palermo, D., eds. Cognition and the Symbolic Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
1982. See Hayek's essay, "The Sensory Order after 25 Years", and "Discussion".
Zippelius, Reinhold,Die experimentierende Methode im Recht, Akademie der Wissenschaften Mainz. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner, 1991, ISBN 3-515-05901-6

External links
Karl Popper on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wikimedia Commons has
"Karl Popper and Critical Rationalism". Internet Encyclopedia of
media related to Karl
Philosophy. Popper.
"Karl Popper: Political Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
Wikiquote has quotations
Popper, K. R. "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
related to: Karl Popper
1977.
The Karl Popper Web
Influence on Friesian Philosophy
Sir Karl R. Popper in Prague, May 1994
Synopsis and background of The poverty of historicism
"A Skeptical Look at Karl Popper" by Martin Gardner
"A Sceptical Look at 'A Skeptical Look at Karl Popper'" by J C Lester.
Singer, Peter (2 May 1974), "Discovering Karl Popper", The New York Review of Books, 21 (7), retrieved
21 January 2016
The Liberalism of Karl Popper by John N. Gray
Karl Popper on Information Philosopher
History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science, BOOK V: Karl Popper Site offers free downloads
by chapter available for public use.
Karl Popper at Liberal-international.org
A science and technology hypotheses database following Karl Popper's refutability principle
Karl Popper at Goodreads
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Popper&oldid=790047599"

Categories: Karl Popper 1902 births 1994 deaths 20th-century philosophers

20th-century Austrian writers 20th-century British writers Austrian agnostics Austrian philosophers
British agnostics British people of Austrian-Jewish descent British philosophers
British political philosophers Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club Philosophers of mind
Consciousness researchers and theorists Critical rationalists Philosophers of science
Mont Pelerin Society members Fellows of the British Academy Fellows of the Royal Society (Statute 12)
Fellows of Darwin College, Cambridge Academics of the London School of Economics
University of Vienna alumni University of Canterbury faculty Writers from Vienna
Naturalised citizens of the United Kingdom Members of the Order of the Companions of Honour
Knights Bachelor Recipients of the Pour le Mrite (civil class)
Grand Crosses with Star and Sash of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Kyoto laureates in Arts and Philosophy
Recipients of the Grand Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria
Recipients of the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art Presidents of the Aristotelian Society

This page was last edited on 11 July 2017, at 08:07.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.