There have been smoke-filled blow-hards in academia for generations, such as Hegel, whose entire opus consisted of deliberately nonsensical word salad, and whos

There have been smoke-filled blow-hards in academia for generations, such as Hegel, whose entire opus consisted of deliberately nonsensical word salad, and whose careers in income depended entirely on confusing people in such a way as to seem profound, with word salad intended to be impenetrable and non-specific so nobody could clearly point out the myriad ways they were full of crap. Schopenhauer had a good go at explaining it, if you're interested. Popper was one of those people. He was not a scientist. He never had anything to do with science. He was a sophist. He talked rings around people in such a way that they never knew what the hell he was talking about, but they assumed it must be profound and amazing. Karl Popper himself based his ideas about science not on actual science, but on the philosophies including Marxism and Freudian psychology. Karl Popper's own words: "A theory which is NOT REFUTABLE by any conceivable event is non-scientific." Therefore the theory of gravity is not a scientific theory because nobody has yet conceived of an event or experiment which refutes it. I realise this will cause a negative reflex among those who are addicted to internerding and have held tightly to the unfounded belief (picked up from other internerds) that "Science must be falsifiable!", but it's just not reality. It's just a little thing that people saw on Wikipedia, latched on to, and figured it was really significant and legitimate. But it's just Popper's nonsense. There are plenty of extensive criticisms of Popper's sophistry out there by actual scientists and philosophers. Feel free to read some. As for the scientific method, if you can't do a web search and find out what they actually is, well, nobody can help you.