3 ms·
Well, yes, fair enough. But the main point is that scientific progress was greatly accelerated thereafter. In that sense there is a before and after him, and a
by gboudrias 8y ago
Well, yes, fair enough. But the main point is that scientific progress was greatly accelerated thereafter. In that sense there is a before and after him, and anyone who would choose to be anti-Popper (nowadays) is generally an epistemic relativist who doesn't believe in the idea of progress, or sometimes even the scientific enterprise, at all.
- foldr 8y agoMost philosophers of science think that Popper was fundamentally wrong about induction and demarcation, but few of them are epistemic relativists.
- gboudrias 8y agoAfter some research, I understand that falsification is not seen as a sufficient criteria for demarcation as Popper probably saw it. But do you not agree that the idea of falsification as a bare minimum was revolutionary? That was the main point of my original comment. Apologies to anyone I might have offended by accidentally bundling them with relativists.