Titlebook: Science in Flux; Joseph Agassi Book 1975 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1975 Karl R. Popper.history of science.realism.t

Oratory

neoplasm

Towards a Theory of , Hypotheses,s ad hoc all too often. And Newton’s optics was ., as William Whewell argued at great length. Now Copernicus’ complaint is not in itself unreasonable: Ptolemy’s epicycles were old hands and gained the legitimacy of regular customers, whereas his own were stop-gaps. This idea can be generalized.

調(diào)整

Positive Evidence in Science and Technology,en by inductivists as naive, the argument collapses. Hence the question is, on what basis do we project the future success of science? My answer is that this future success is built into our social institutions and is partially institutionally safeguarded.

Highbrow

萬靈丹

lethargy

A Prologue: On Stability and Flux, and the superficial, or common-sense. (Strictly, the superficial may be different from the common-sense, but let us ignore this.) He may speak superficially or common-sensically of relative stability and instability, and he may speak metaphysically of stability inherent in things he considers, of u

FIS

vector

On Novelty,nd then contrary to religion, and when it overcomes these two obstacles it is declared to be old hat. Popper’s philosophy is just now passing from the second to the third stage — the stage of being old hat. Be that as it may, allow me to record, as an observation, that a number of distinguished phil

regale

Replies to Diane: Popper on Learning from Experience,ility. That is to say, the probability of a conjunction of two different events is the product of their probabilities. From this it follows that the probability of any event given any set of different events is the same as it was prior to those events having been given. For example, the chance of th

帶子

Sensationalism, of these pages is to systematize the traditional arguments against sensationalism, to show their incompleteness, and to supplement them with some modern arguments. Round the turn of the century a new version of sensationalism was proposed by Duhem and Meyerson. It is not surprising that only modern