Quotes from book
The Logic of Scientific Discovery

The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Karl Popper Original title Logik der Forschung (German, 1934)

The Logic of Scientific Discovery is a 1959 book about the philosophy of science by the philosopher Karl Popper. Popper rewrote his book in English from the 1934 German original, titled Logik der Forschung. Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft, which literally translates as, "Logic of Research: On the Epistemology of Modern Natural Science"'.


Karl Popper photo

“A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form.”

Source: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 1 "A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems", Section I: The Problem of Induction
Context: A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method: "… this principle", says Reichenbach, "determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power to decide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet's mind."
Now this principle of induction cannot be a purely logical truth like a tautology or an analytic statement. Indeed, if there were such a thing as a purely logical principle of induction, there would be no problem of induction; for in this case, all inductive inferences would have to be regarded as purely logical or tautological transformations, just like inferences in inductive logic. Thus the principle of induction must be a synthetic statement; that is, a statement whose negation is not self-contradictory but logically possible. So the question arises why such a principle should be accepted at all, and how we can justify its acceptance on rational grounds.

Karl Popper photo
Karl Popper photo

“The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game.”

Source: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 2 "On the Problem of a Theory of Scientific Method", Section XI: Methodological Rules as Conventions

Karl Popper photo

“… The answer to this problem is: as implied by Hume, we certainly are not justified in reasoning from an instance to the truth of the corresponding law. But to this negative result a second result, equally negative, may be added: we are justified in reasoning from a counterinstance to the falsity of the corresponding universal law (that is, of any law of which it is a counterinstance). Or in other words, from a purely logical point of view, the acceptance of one counterinstance to 'All swans are white' implies the falsity of the law 'All swans are white' - that law, that is, whose counterinstance we accepted. Induction is logically invalid; but refutation or falsification is a logically valid way of arguing from a single counterinstance to - or, rather, against - the corresponding law. This shows that I continue to agree with Hume's negative logical result; but I extend it. This logical situation is completely independent of any question of whether we would, in practice, accept a single counterinstance - for example, a solitary black swan - in refutation of a so far highly successful law. I do not suggest that we would necessarily be so easily satisfied; we might well suspect that the black specimen before us was not a swan.”

Source: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 1 "A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems", Section I: The Problem of Induction http://dieoff.org/page126.htm p. 27

Karl Popper photo

“Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.”

Source: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 10 "Corroboration, or How a Theory Stands up to Tests", section 85: The Path of Science, p. 280
Context: Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her. And we must hazard them to win our prize. Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.

Karl Popper photo

“...non-reproducible single occurrences are of no significance to science.”

Source: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 4 "Falsifiability", Section XXII: Falsifiability and Falsification. p. 66.

Similar authors

Karl Popper photo
Karl Popper 82
Austrian-British philosopher of science 1902–1994
Ludwig Wittgenstein photo
Ludwig Wittgenstein 228
Austrian-British philosopher
Erwin Schrödinger photo
Erwin Schrödinger 67
Austrian physicist
Friedrich Hayek photo
Friedrich Hayek 79
Austrian and British economist and Nobel Prize for Economic…
Stefan Zweig photo
Stefan Zweig 106
Austrian writer
Rudolf Steiner photo
Rudolf Steiner 20
Austrian esotericist
Elfriede Jelinek photo
Elfriede Jelinek 50
Austrian writer
Arthur C. Clarke photo
Arthur C. Clarke 207
British science fiction writer, science writer, inventor, u…
Ludwig von Mises photo
Ludwig von Mises 62
austrian economist
Martin Buber photo
Martin Buber 58
German Jewish Existentialist philosopher and theologian