Karl Popper's basic statements are not justifiable by immediate experience because observation is theory-laden.
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
Reference sources on Karl Popper document that he rejected the view that basic statements are infallible or justifiable purely by immediate sensory experience, instead treating them as descriptions tied to theoretical frameworks.
Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian–British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification made possible by his falsifiability criterion, and for founding the Depa
Popper coined the term "critical rationalism" to describe his philosophy. Popper rejected the empiricist view (following from Kant) that basic statements are infallible; rather, according to Popper, they are descriptions in relation to a theoretical framework. Concerning the method of science, the term "critical rationalism" indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings.
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive; it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between metaphysics and science: a law should be considered scientific if, and only if, it makes predictions, irrespective of their validity or of our capacity to show them false. This led him to attack the claims of both psychoanalysis and contemporary Marxism to scientific status, on the basis that they do not make predictions, but instead are compatible with any possible observations.
In All Life is Problem Solving, Popper sought to explain the apparent progress of scientific knowledge—that is, how it is that our understanding of the universe seems to improve over time. This problem arises from his position that the truth content of our theories, even the best of them, cannot be verified by scientific testing, but can only be falsified. With only falsifications being possible logically, how can we explain the growth of knowledge? In Popper's view, the advance of…
Science…
Due to Sir Karl Popper’s slashing style, his writings are full of tensions and inconsistencies. However, they can be resolved by a sufficiently sympathetic reading. In this chapter the author offers such a reading. The author argues that Popper’s endorsement of Hume’s “skeptical” argument leads him to a version of reflective equilibrium theory. He, Goodman, and Quine reject the idea of a principled distinction between facts and theories and take all beliefs about the world to be theoretical and fallible.
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.