Popper was very concerned with explaining the actual underlying reality and what criteria contribute to better explanations - things like being more rigid. To m

Popper was very concerned with explaining the actual underlying reality and what criteria contribute to better explanations - things like being more rigid. To me that seems quite against the main idea of _p_ositivism. Popper even takes that stance that theory is prior to evidence - you start with the best explanation and even without new evidence or predictions, you move on to better explanations as they are discovered. Since you are making this claim against his own words and without being backed up by respected sources, in what sense is he a _p_ositivist?