Celebrating 18 Years on the Web
Find science on or your birthday

Today in Science History - Quickie Quiz
Who said: “The Columbia is lost; there are no survivors.”
more quiz questions >>
Home > Dictionary of Science Quotations > Scientist Names Index P > Karl Raimund Popper Quotes > Science

Thumbnail of Karl Raimund Popper (source)
Karl Raimund Popper
(28 Jul 1902 - 17 Sep 1994)

Austrian-British philosopher of science remembered for his writings on theory of scientific method.

Karl Raimund Popper Quotes on Science (18 quotes)

>> Click for 42 Science Quotes by Karl Raimund Popper

>> Click for Karl Raimund Popper Quotes on | Criticism | Falsification | Idea | Knowledge | Refutation | Scientific Method | Test | Theory | Truth |

'Normal' science, in Kuhn's sense, exists. It is the activity of the non-revolutionary, or more precisely, the not-too-critical professional: of the science student who accepts the ruling dogma of the day... in my view the 'normal' scientist, as Kuhn describes him, is a person one ought to be sorry for... He has been taught in a dogmatic spirit: he is a victim of indoctrination... I can only say that I see a very great danger in it and in the possibility of its becoming normal... a danger to science and, indeed, to our civilization. And this shows why I regard Kuhn's emphasis on the existence of this kind of science as so important.
— Karl Raimund Popper
'Normal Science and its Dangers', in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (1970), 52-3.
Science quotes on:  |  Activity (135)  |  Civilization (175)  |  Criticism (60)  |  Danger (78)  |  Description (84)  |  Dogmatism (10)  |  Emphasis (17)  |  Existence (299)  |  Importance (218)  |  Indoctrination (2)  |  Kind (140)  |  Thomas S. Kuhn (22)  |  Normal (28)  |  Person (154)  |  Possibility (116)  |  Precisely (23)  |  Professional (37)  |  Revolutionary (16)  |  Sense (321)  |  Sorry (16)  |  Spirit (154)  |  Victim (13)

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 Raimund Popper
Science quotes on:  |  Accept (65)  |  Acceptable (6)  |  Acceptance (45)  |  Analytic (10)  |  Arbitrary (21)  |  Arise (49)  |  Case (99)  |  Clearly (41)  |  Creation (242)  |  Decide (40)  |  Deprive (11)  |  Determine (76)  |  Distinguish (64)  |  Eliminate (21)  |  Eye (222)  |  Falsity (13)  |  Fanciful (6)  |  Form (314)  |  Ground (90)  |  Help (103)  |  Importance (218)  |  Induction (60)  |  Inductive (10)  |  Inference (32)  |  Justify (23)  |  Less (102)  |  Logic (260)  |  Logical (55)  |  Long (174)  |  Mean (101)  |  Mind (760)  |  Negation (2)  |  Nothing (395)  |  Poet (83)  |  Possible (158)  |  Power (366)  |  Principle (292)  |  Problem (497)  |  Purely (28)  |  Question (404)  |  Rational (57)  |  Regard (95)  |  Right (197)  |  Say (228)  |  Science (2067)  |  Scientific (236)  |  Scientific Method (166)  |  Scientific Theory (24)  |  Statement (76)  |  Supreme (37)  |  Synthetic (16)  |  Tautological (2)  |  Tautology (4)  |  Theory (696)  |  Transformation (54)  |  Truth (928)

Almost everyone... seems to be quite sure that the differences between the methodologies of history and of the natural sciences are vast. For, we are assured, it is well known that in the natural sciences we start from observation and proceed by induction to theory. And is it not obvious that in history we proceed very differently? Yes, I agree that we proceed very differently. But we do so in the natural sciences as well.
In both we start from myths—from traditional prejudices, beset with error—and from these we proceed by criticism: by the critical elimination of errors. In both the role of evidence is, in the main, to correct our mistakes, our prejudices, our tentative theories—that is, to play a part in the critical discussion, in the elimination of error. By correcting our mistakes, we raise new problems. And in order to solve these problems, we invent conjectures, that is, tentative theories, which we submit to critical discussion, directed towards the elimination of error.
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (1993), 140.
Science quotes on:  |  Conjecture (32)  |  Correction (31)  |  Criticism (60)  |  Difference (246)  |  Discussion (48)  |  Elimination (18)  |  Error (277)  |  Everyone (34)  |  Evidence (183)  |  History (369)  |  Induction (60)  |  Methodology (8)  |  Mistake (132)  |  Myth (48)  |  Natural Science (90)  |  Observation (450)  |  Prejudice (66)  |  Problem (497)  |  Theory (696)  |  Tradition (49)

I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a 'body of knowledge,' but rather as a system of hypotheses; that is to say, as a system of guesses or anticipations which in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are 'true' or 'more or less certain' or even 'probable.'
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), 317.
Science quotes on:  |  Accustom (9)  |  Anticipation (14)  |  Certainty (131)  |  Guess (48)  |  Hypothesis (252)  |  Idea (580)  |  Justification (40)  |  Knowledge (1306)  |  Principle (292)  |  Probability (106)  |  Test (125)  |  Truth (928)

In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung (1959, 2002), 28.
Science quotes on:  |  Experiment (602)  |  Proof (245)  |  Result (389)  |  Theory (696)

It is a myth that the success of science in our time is mainly due to the huge amounts of money that have been spent on big machines. What really makes science grow is new ideas, including false ideas.
— Karl Raimund Popper
As quoted by Adam Gopnik, writing about his meeting with Popper at home, in 'The Porcupine: A Pilgrimage to Popper' in The New Yorker (1 Apr 2002).
Science quotes on:  |  False (99)  |  Growth (124)  |  Idea (580)  |  New (496)  |  Science (2067)

It is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.
— Karl Raimund Popper
In The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959, 1972), 281.
Science quotes on:  |  Critical (41)  |  Irrefutable (4)  |  Knowledge (1306)  |  Persistent (9)  |  Possession (46)  |  Quest (32)  |  Recklessly (2)  |  Truth (928)

It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification. (1959)
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung (2002), 33.
Science quotes on:  |  Scientific Method (166)

My thesis is that what we call 'science' is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from a myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition—that of critically discussing the myth. … In a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is.
— Karl Raimund Popper
Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2002), 170-171.
Science quotes on:  |  Criticism (60)  |  Differentiation (18)  |  Myth (48)  |  Science And Religion (302)  |  Thesis (11)

Science is not a system of certain, or -established, statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality... And our guesses are guided by the unscientific, the metaphysical (though biologically explicable) faith in laws, in regularities which we can uncover—discover. Like Bacon, we might describe our own contemporary science—'the method of reasoning which men now ordinarily apply to nature'—as consisting of 'anticipations, rash and premature' and as 'prejudices'.
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), 278.
Science quotes on:  |  Advancement (40)  |  Anticipation (14)  |  Application (170)  |  Biology (168)  |  Certainty (131)  |  Contemporary (30)  |  Discovery (680)  |  Explanation (177)  |  Faith (157)  |  Finality (4)  |  Guess (48)  |  Guidance (20)  |  Law (515)  |  Metaphysics (36)  |  Method (239)  |  Nature (1223)  |  Prejudice (66)  |  Premature (20)  |  Rashness (2)  |  Reasoning (100)  |  Regularity (29)  |  Science (2067)  |  Statement (76)  |  System (191)  |  Uncover (6)  |  Unscientific (7)  |  Well-Established (2)

The difficulties connected with my criterion of demarcation (D) are important, but must not be exaggerated. It is vague, since it is a methodological rule, and since the demarcation between science and nonscience is vague. But it is more than sharp enough to make a distinction between many physical theories on the one hand, and metaphysical theories, such as psychoanalysis, or Marxism (in its present form), on the other. This is, of course, one of my main theses; and nobody who has not understood it can be said to have understood my theory.
The situation with Marxism is, incidentally, very different from that with psychoanalysis. Marxism was once a scientific theory: it predicted that capitalism would lead to increasing misery and, through a more or less mild revolution, to socialism; it predicted that this would happen first in the technically highest developed countries; and it predicted that the technical evolution of the 'means of production' would lead to social, political, and ideological developments, rather than the other way round.
But the (so-called) socialist revolution came first in one of the technically backward countries. And instead of the means of production producing a new ideology, it was Lenin's and Stalin's ideology that Russia must push forward with its industrialization ('Socialism is dictatorship of the proletariat plus electrification') which promoted the new development of the means of production.
Thus one might say that Marxism was once a science, but one which was refuted by some of the facts which happened to clash with its predictions (I have here mentioned just a few of these facts).
However, Marxism is no longer a science; for it broke the methodological rule that we must accept falsification, and it immunized itself against the most blatant refutations of its predictions. Ever since then, it can be described only as nonscience—as a metaphysical dream, if you like, married to a cruel reality.
Psychoanalysis is a very different case. It is an interesting psychological metaphysics (and no doubt there is some truth in it, as there is so often in metaphysical ideas), but it never was a science. There may be lots of people who are Freudian or Adlerian cases: Freud himself was clearly a Freudian case, and Adler an Adlerian case. But what prevents their theories from being scientific in the sense here described is, very simply, that they do not exclude any physically possible human behaviour. Whatever anybody may do is, in principle, explicable in Freudian or Adlerian terms. (Adler's break with Freud was more Adlerian than Freudian, but Freud never looked on it as a refutation of his theory.)
The point is very clear. Neither Freud nor Adler excludes any particular person's acting in any particular way, whatever the outward circumstances. Whether a man sacrificed his life to rescue a drowning, child (a case of sublimation) or whether he murdered the child by drowning him (a case of repression) could not possibly be predicted or excluded by Freud's theory; the theory was compatible with everything that could happen—even without any special immunization treatment.
Thus while Marxism became non-scientific by its adoption of an immunizing strategy, psychoanalysis was immune to start with, and remained so. In contrast, most physical theories are pretty free of immunizing tactics and highly falsifiable to start with. As a rule, they exclude an infinity of conceivable possibilities.
— Karl Raimund Popper
'The Problem of Demarcation' (1974). Collected in David Miller (ed.) Popper Selections (1985), 127-128.
Science quotes on:  |  Alfred Adler (3)  |  Falsification (9)  |  Sigmund Freud (69)  |  Marxism (3)  |  Metaphysics (36)  |  Methodology (8)  |  Non-Science (2)  |  Psychoanalysis (37)  |  Refutation (12)  |  Scientific Theory (24)  |  Theory (696)  |  Truth (928)

The empirical basis of objective science has nothing “absolute” about it. Science does not rest upon solid bedrock. The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp. It is like a building erected on piles. The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, but not down to any natural or “given” base; and when we cease our attempts to drive our piles into a deeper layer, it is not because we have reached firm ground. We simply stop when we are satisfied that they are firm enough to carry the structure, at least for the time being.
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery: Logik Der Forschung (1959, 2002), 94.
Science quotes on:  |  Science (2067)  |  Theory (696)

The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities—perhaps the only one—in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there. In most other fields of human endeavour there is change, but rarely progress ... And in most fields we do not even know how to evaluate change.
— Karl Raimund Popper
From Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963), 216. Reproduced in Karl Popper, Truth, Rationality and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1979), 9.
Science quotes on:  |  Activity (135)  |  Clarity (41)  |  Correction (31)  |  Criticism (60)  |  Dream (167)  |  Error (277)  |  History (369)  |  History Of Science (58)  |  Human (550)  |  Idea (580)  |  Irresponsibility (5)  |  Learning (177)  |  Mistake (132)  |  Obstinacy (3)  |  Progress (368)  |  Sense (321)  |  Speaking (37)  |  Systematically (7)

The method of science depends on our attempts to describe the world with simple theories: theories that are complex may become untestable, even if they happen to be true. Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification—the art of discerning what we may with advantage omit.
— Karl Raimund Popper
Karl Raimund Popper and William Warren Bartley (ed.), The Open Universe: an Argument for Indeterminism (1991), 44. by Karl Raimund Popper, William Warren Bartley - Science - 1991
Science quotes on:  |  Complexity (91)  |  Description (84)  |  Discern (17)  |  Omit (7)  |  Scientific Method (166)  |  Simplicity (147)  |  Test (125)  |  Theory (696)  |  Truth (928)

The scientific tradition is distinguished from the pre-scientific tradition by having two layers. Like the latter, it passes on its theories; but it also passes on a critical attitude towards them.
— Karl Raimund Popper
Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2002), 66.
Science quotes on:  |  Attitude (59)  |  Criticism (60)  |  Distinguish (64)  |  Layer (22)  |  Pre-Scientific (2)  |  Science (2067)  |  Tradition (49)

There can be no ultimate statements science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them.
— Karl Raimund Popper
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), 47.
Science quotes on:  |  Conclusion (160)  |  Deduction (69)  |  Falsification (9)  |  Principle (292)  |  Refutation (12)  |  Statement (76)  |  Test (125)  |  Ultimate (84)

Thus science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; neither with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices.
— Karl Raimund Popper
In Conjectures and Refutations: the Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963, 2002), 66.
Science quotes on:  |  Criticism (60)  |  Myth (48)  |  Science (2067)

[The aim of science is] to explain what so far has taken to be an explicans, such as a law of nature. The task of empirical science constantly renews itself. We may go on forever, proceeding to explanations of a higher and higher universality…
— Karl Raimund Popper
"The Aim of Science', Ratio 1 (1958), 26. Quoted in Erhard Scheibe and Brigitte Falkenburg (ed), Between Rationalism and Empiricism: Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Physics (2001), 238
Science quotes on:  |  Law (515)  |  Scientific Method (166)

See also:
  • 28 Jul - short biography, births, deaths and events on date of Popper's birth.

Carl Sagan Thumbnail In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. (1987) -- Carl Sagan
Quotations by:Albert EinsteinIsaac NewtonLord KelvinCharles DarwinSrinivasa RamanujanCarl SaganFlorence NightingaleThomas EdisonAristotleMarie CurieBenjamin FranklinWinston ChurchillGalileo GalileiSigmund FreudRobert BunsenLouis PasteurTheodore RooseveltAbraham LincolnRonald ReaganLeonardo DaVinciMichio KakuKarl PopperJohann GoetheRobert OppenheimerCharles Kettering  ... (more people)

Quotations about:Atomic  BombBiologyChemistryDeforestationEngineeringAnatomyAstronomyBacteriaBiochemistryBotanyConservationDinosaurEnvironmentFractalGeneticsGeologyHistory of ScienceInventionJupiterKnowledgeLoveMathematicsMeasurementMedicineNatural ResourceOrganic ChemistryPhysicsPhysicianQuantum TheoryResearchScience and ArtTeacherTechnologyUniverseVolcanoVirusWind PowerWomen ScientistsX-RaysYouthZoology  ... (more topics)
Sitewide search within all Today In Science History pages:
Visit our Science and Scientist Quotations index for more Science Quotes from archaeologists, biologists, chemists, geologists, inventors and inventions, mathematicians, physicists, pioneers in medicine, science events and technology.

Names index: | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |

Categories index: | 1 | 2 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z |

- 100 -
Sophie Germain
Gertrude Elion
Ernest Rutherford
James Chadwick
Marcel Proust
William Harvey
Johann Goethe
John Keynes
Carl Gauss
Paul Feyerabend
- 90 -
Antoine Lavoisier
Lise Meitner
Charles Babbage
Ibn Khaldun
Ralph Emerson
Robert Bunsen
Frederick Banting
Andre Ampere
Winston Churchill
- 80 -
John Locke
Bronislaw Malinowski
Thomas Huxley
Alessandro Volta
Erwin Schrodinger
Wilhelm Roentgen
Louis Pasteur
Bertrand Russell
Jean Lamarck
- 70 -
Samuel Morse
John Wheeler
Nicolaus Copernicus
Robert Fulton
Pierre Laplace
Humphry Davy
Thomas Edison
Lord Kelvin
Theodore Roosevelt
Carolus Linnaeus
- 60 -
Francis Galton
Linus Pauling
Immanuel Kant
Martin Fischer
Robert Boyle
Karl Popper
Paul Dirac
James Watson
William Shakespeare
- 50 -
Stephen Hawking
Niels Bohr
Nikola Tesla
Rachel Carson
Max Planck
Henry Adams
Richard Dawkins
Werner Heisenberg
Alfred Wegener
John Dalton
- 40 -
Pierre Fermat
Edward Wilson
Johannes Kepler
Gustave Eiffel
Giordano Bruno
JJ Thomson
Thomas Kuhn
Leonardo DaVinci
David Hume
- 30 -
Andreas Vesalius
Rudolf Virchow
Richard Feynman
James Hutton
Alexander Fleming
Emile Durkheim
Benjamin Franklin
Robert Oppenheimer
Robert Hooke
Charles Kettering
- 20 -
Carl Sagan
James Maxwell
Marie Curie
Rene Descartes
Francis Crick
Michael Faraday
Srinivasa Ramanujan
Francis Bacon
Galileo Galilei
- 10 -
John Watson
Rosalind Franklin
Michio Kaku
Isaac Asimov
Charles Darwin
Sigmund Freud
Albert Einstein
Florence Nightingale
Isaac Newton

who invites your feedback
Thank you for sharing.
Today in Science History
Sign up for Newsletter
with quiz, quotes and more.