> Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. "While all this was going o

> Yes, after having read this article I’m none the wiser about why Popper was wrong or even if he was wrong about falsificationism. "While all this was going on, three philosophers were pulling[0] the rug away beneath the Popperians’ feet. They argued[1] that[2], when an experiment fails to prove a hypothesis, any element of the physical or theoretical set-up could be to blame. Nor can any single disproof ever count against a theory, since we can always put in a good-faith auxiliary hypothesis to protect it: perhaps the lab mice weren’t sufficiently inbred to produce genetic consistency; perhaps the chemical reaction occurs only in the presence of a particular catalyst. Moreover, we have to protect some theories for the sake of getting on at all. Generally, we don’t conclude that we have disproved well-established laws of physics – rather, that our experiment was faulty." The basic argument is that falsificationism isn't actually how science is carried out. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181906?seq=1 [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_... [2] https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS https://philarchive.org/archive/THOPBS