The Logic of Scientific Discovery¶
Popper, K. R. (1934/1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Logik der Forschung.
Cited by¶
26 citations across 26 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Absence as Information
- The negative-finding logic of clinical reasoning — a hypothesis predicts X, X was not seen, the hypothesis is constrained — is the same logical engine as Popperian falsification, so a clinician and a methodologist are running one move in two registers.
This sourceStates the falsificationist logic that a hypothesis predicting an observable is constrained when that observable fails to appear.
- The negative-finding logic of clinical reasoning — a hypothesis predicts X, X was not seen, the hypothesis is constrained — is the same logical engine as Popperian falsification, so a clinician and a methodologist are running one move in two registers.
- Contraposition
- modulo evidence-integrity assumptions, and reconciliation procedures are built on the contrapositive of expected traces. Falsifiability in science. "If hypothesis H, then observation O must hold" together with "O does not hold" yields "not H,"
This sourceEstablishes falsifiability and the modus-tollens core of scientific testing: if H then O; not-O; therefore not-H.
- modulo evidence-integrity assumptions, and reconciliation procedures are built on the contrapositive of expected traces. Falsifiability in science. "If hypothesis H, then observation O must hold" together with "O does not hold" yields "not H,"
- Epistemic Mode Of A Proposition
- In empirical science, the modes are hypothesis (must be tested, never merely relied on), law or established theory (asserted, but provisionally and open to revision), datum (taken as given but carrying measurement error), and auxiliary assumption (relied on while flagged), and the central scientific operations — confirmation, falsification, replication — are mode transitions that move a proposition from hypothesis toward established fact or back to refuted.
This sourceTreats scientific laws as provisional conjectures held open to falsification and only ever corroborated, not proved — supporting the hypothesis/law modes of science and confirmation/falsification as mode transitions (hypothesis → corroborated/refuted).
- In empirical science, the modes are hypothesis (must be tested, never merely relied on), law or established theory (asserted, but provisionally and open to revision), datum (taken as given but carrying measurement error), and auxiliary assumption (relied on while flagged), and the central scientific operations — confirmation, falsification, replication — are mode transitions that move a proposition from hypothesis toward established fact or back to refuted.
- Expectation Violation
- Only the contradictions carry information about where the model stops being right.
This sourceEstablishes the asymmetry by which confirming instances add nothing while a contradicting instance bounds where a model stops holding.
- Only the contradictions carry information about where the model stops being right.
- Falsifiability
- Inductive Reasoning
- Positive instances confirming a hypothesis do not deductively establish it (confirming instances are always compatible with exceptions), yet one falsifying instance can definitively refute a universal hypothesis — an asymmetry that Popper
This sourceHutchinson. Popper Logic of Scientific Discovery falsification principle.
- Positive instances confirming a hypothesis do not deductively establish it (confirming instances are always compatible with exceptions), yet one falsifying instance can definitively refute a universal hypothesis — an asymmetry that Popper
- Unfalsifiability
- Unfalsifiability is a relation between a claim and the observations that could bear on it: the claim is offered as answerable to evidence, yet no admissible result carries a stable claim-defeating status, so nothing that could be seen would compel rejection.
This sourceEstablishes falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation and measures a theory's empirical content by its class of potential falsifiers, so a claim admitting no potential falsifier has no evidential exposure.
- Unfalsifiability is a relation between a claim and the observations that could bear on it: the claim is offered as answerable to evidence, yet no admissible result carries a stable claim-defeating status, so nothing that could be seen would compel rejection.
- Verifier-Prover Asymmetry
Domain-specific¶
- Newton's Flaming Laser Sword
- Falsifiability asks whether some possible evidence could refute an empirical claim and, in Popper's account, helps demarcate empirical science.
This sourceHutchinson. English edition of the 1934 account of falsifiability, empirical content, and demarcation.
- Falsifiability asks whether some possible evidence could refute an empirical claim and, in Popper's account, helps demarcate empirical science.
- Special Pleading
- The fallacy is a canonical entry in informal-logic textbooks and in the philosophy-of-science literature under Popper's description of the "conventionalist twist" — the move by which a predictive theory that fails under test is rescued by exempting the failed instance from the prediction's scope ("the experiment was conducted under hostile observers"; "a true believer would not have wavered") — which is the same ad-hoc-exemption structure applied to the falsifiability norm rather than to a disputed rule.
This sourcePopper's decision, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 'never [to] save it by any kind of conventionalist stratagem', and his rule that a system rescued by such a stratagem be tested afresh and rejected. Popper's conventionalist stratagem, described in The Logic of Scientific Discovery as a system's being 'rescued' from refutation and to be tested afresh and rejected. Popper's rule against rescuing a threatened system by a conventionalist stratagem, on the ground that such a system's degree of falsifiability is 'equal to zero'.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“We decide that if our system is threatened we will never save it by any kind of conventionalist stratagem.”
- The fallacy is a canonical entry in informal-logic textbooks and in the philosophy-of-science literature under Popper's description of the "conventionalist twist" — the move by which a predictive theory that fails under test is rescued by exempting the failed instance from the prediction's scope ("the experiment was conducted under hostile observers"; "a true believer would not have wavered") — which is the same ad-hoc-exemption structure applied to the falsifiability norm rather than to a disputed rule.
Mechanisms¶
- Counter-Narrative Probe
- Its strength is that a single strong opponent is often more decisive than a long list of weak ones: it embodies the falsificationist instinct to hunt for what the leading claim predicts should be absent, which is where beliefs actually break.
This sourceFrames falsifiability through the observations a theory rules out—its potential falsifiers—rather than through compatible cases.
- Its strength is that a single strong opponent is often more decisive than a long list of weak ones: it embodies the falsificationist instinct to hunt for what the leading claim predicts should be absent, which is where beliefs actually break.
- Counterevidence Precommitment Question
- It is an operational form of falsifiability
This sourceUses possible empirical refutation as the demarcation criterion: an empirical system must conflict with some conceivable observation.
- It is an operational form of falsifiability
- Counterexample Admissibility Test
- It embodies the discipline behind falsifiability — a universal claim must genuinely expose itself to membership-qualified counterexamples
This sourceExplains that universal empirical statements are falsifiable through conflicting singular or basic statements.
- It embodies the discipline behind falsifiability — a universal claim must genuinely expose itself to membership-qualified counterexamples
- Counterexample Probe
- Its strength is asymmetric leverage: a single well-chosen counterexample can settle a universal that no amount of confirming instances could establish, which is the core insight of falsification as a test of claims.
This sourceDevelops falsification around the logical asymmetry that positive instances cannot verify a universal claim whereas a genuine counterinstance can refute it.
- Its strength is asymmetric leverage: a single well-chosen counterexample can settle a universal that no amount of confirming instances could establish, which is the core insight of falsification as a test of claims.
- Counterexample Register
- Its strength is that it keeps a criterion answerable to reality: it operationalizes falsifiability
This sourceMakes empirical claims answerable to reality by requiring that they be exposed to possible refutation or testing.
- Its strength is that it keeps a criterion answerable to reality: it operationalizes falsifiability
- Counterexample Search
- The discipline draws directly on Popper's falsifiability
This sourceExplains that scientific claims must expose themselves to possible refutation and that a universal claim can be falsified by a contrary observation even though repeated confirmations cannot finally verify it.
- The discipline draws directly on Popper's falsifiability
- Disconfirming Condition Probe
- Naming what would count against a claim is the practical core of falsifiability as a test of empirical content.
This sourceTreats falsifiability as requiring empirical claims to specify observations that could count against them.
- Naming what would count against a claim is the practical core of falsifiability as a test of empirical content.
- Falsification Check
- The anchoring idea is Popper's falsifiability
This sourceMakes exposure to possible empirical refutation—not accumulation of favorable instances—the criterion for an empirical scientific claim.
- The anchoring idea is Popper's falsifiability
- Falsification Protocol
- Falsification Test Harness
- The whole apparatus is an expression of the falsifiability principle: a hypothesis earns standing only by exposing itself to a test that could refute it
This sourceStates falsifiability or refutability by empirical tests as a criterion of scientific standing.
- The whole apparatus is an expression of the falsifiability principle: a hypothesis earns standing only by exposing itself to a test that could refute it
- Falsification Trigger Card
- Its strength is defeating belief perseverance: because a responsible belief should specify what would refute it
This sourceGrounds responsible scientific claims in explicit potential falsifiers—the observations that would count against them.
- Its strength is defeating belief perseverance: because a responsible belief should specify what would refute it
- Motif Role Hypothesis Card
- State the disconfirmer up front. Write the observation or intervention outcome that would refute the role before looking for it, converting a narrative into a falsifiable hypothesis.
This sourceMakes exposure to possible falsifying observations a criterion of an empirically testable hypothesis.
- State the disconfirmer up front. Write the observation or intervention outcome that would refute the role before looking for it, converting a narrative into a falsifiable hypothesis.
- Necessity-Possibility Red Team
- Its strength is that it treats necessity and impossibility claims as falsifiable and goes looking for the falsifier — the discipline that separates a claim which has survived challenge from one that was merely never questioned.
This sourceTreats scientific claims as falsifiable when experience could refute them and regards survival of serious attempted refutation as corroboration rather than proof.
- Its strength is that it treats necessity and impossibility claims as falsifiable and goes looking for the falsifier — the discipline that separates a claim which has survived challenge from one that was merely never questioned.
- Negative Convergence Case Search
- - Search the pressure-present, form-absent quadrant. Systematically look for cases that had the claimed driving pressure yet did not produce the form; these attack the "pressure ⇒ form" inference directly.
This sourceUses reproducible counter-instances to test and potentially refute universal pressure-to-outcome claims.
- - Search the pressure-present, form-absent quadrant. Systematically look for cases that had the claimed driving pressure yet did not produce the form; these attack the "pressure ⇒ form" inference directly.
- Proof by Counterexample
- Universal Counterexample Test
- Its strength is efficiency born of asymmetry: refuting a universal takes one case, so a focused hunt for a counterexample is far cheaper than any attempt to confirm "all," and it is the engine behind treating a universal as a bold, falsifiable conjecture rather than an accumulation of agreeable examples.
This sourceExplains that one counter-instance can falsify a universal statement while finite confirming instances cannot verify it.
- Its strength is efficiency born of asymmetry: refuting a universal takes one case, so a focused hunt for a counterexample is far cheaper than any attempt to confirm "all," and it is the engine behind treating a universal as a bold, falsifiable conjecture rather than an accumulation of agreeable examples.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 26 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 9 other ways.
- https://archive.org/details/logicofscientifi0000popp_s7y7 ×4
- https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery.html?id=KZvXAAAAMAAJ ×4
- https://www.routledge.com/The-Logic-of-Scientific-Discovery/Popper/p/book/9780415278447 ×4
- https://search.worldcat.org/title/1036569074 ×3
- https://archive.org/details/logicofscientifi0000popp ×2
- https://books.google.com/books?id=KZvXAAAAMAAJ ×1
- https://search.worldcat.org/title/254141 ×1
- https://search.worldcat.org/zh-tw/title/logic-of-scientific-discovery/oclc/5089675?page=citation ×1
- https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery/Yq6xeupNStMC ×1
Registry ID ref:720912d06c55 · see in the full table