Popper
KARL POPPER has argued (I think successfully) that a scientific idea can never be proven true, because because no matter how many observations seem to agree with it, it may still be wrong. On the other hand, a single contrary experiment can prove a theory forever false.
Argue that truth is evolving and can never be absolutely known. As it turns out they were wrong, thus ultimately harmful for the evolution of Human Knowledge.
Popper was a Realist but did not believe that we could Demonstrate True Knowledge of Reality
“My thesis is that realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable. Realism like anything else outside logic and finite arithmetic is not demonstrable; but while empirical scientific theories are refutable, realism is not even refutable. (It shares this irrefutability with many philosophical or 'metaphysical' theories, in particular also with idealism.) But it is arguable, and the weight of the arguments is overwhelmingly in its favor.” (Popper, 1975)
Problem of Induction: How can it be shown that inductive inferences (at least probabilistic ones) are valid, or can be valid?
By an inductive inference is here meant an inference from repeatedly observed instances to some as yet unobserved instances. It is of comparatively minor significance whether such an inference from the observed to the unobserved is, from the point of view of time, predictive or retrodictive; whether we infer that the sun will rise tomorrow or that it did rise 100,000 years ago.
Their authors do not take Hume's logical criticism sufficiently seriously; and they never seriously consider the possibility that we can, and must, do without induction by repetition, and that we actually manage without it. It seems to me that all the objections to my theory which I know of approach it with the question of whether my theory has solved the traditional problem of induction - that is, whether I have justified inductive inference. Of course I have not. From this my critics deduce that I
Argue that truth is evolving and can never be absolutely known. As it turns out they were wrong, thus ultimately harmful for the evolution of Human Knowledge.
Popper was a Realist but did not believe that we could Demonstrate True Knowledge of Reality
“My thesis is that realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable. Realism like anything else outside logic and finite arithmetic is not demonstrable; but while empirical scientific theories are refutable, realism is not even refutable. (It shares this irrefutability with many philosophical or 'metaphysical' theories, in particular also with idealism.) But it is arguable, and the weight of the arguments is overwhelmingly in its favor.” (Popper, 1975)
Problem of Induction: How can it be shown that inductive inferences (at least probabilistic ones) are valid, or can be valid?
By an inductive inference is here meant an inference from repeatedly observed instances to some as yet unobserved instances. It is of comparatively minor significance whether such an inference from the observed to the unobserved is, from the point of view of time, predictive or retrodictive; whether we infer that the sun will rise tomorrow or that it did rise 100,000 years ago.
Their authors do not take Hume's logical criticism sufficiently seriously; and they never seriously consider the possibility that we can, and must, do without induction by repetition, and that we actually manage without it. It seems to me that all the objections to my theory which I know of approach it with the question of whether my theory has solved the traditional problem of induction - that is, whether I have justified inductive inference. Of course I have not. From this my critics deduce that I