Talk:The Logic of Scientific Discovery

"Falsification also comes to replace convention as a marker of the problem of demarcation."

I've removed this sentence. It seems to be a perfectly legitimate bit of technical jargon in the academic study of the philosophy of science, but without any cross links or "see also's" to explain it or give context, it is meaningless to me and probably to the average reader.

Please discuss here. It should be linked and expanded before any reinsertion.

Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Working on adding some of this content.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

'All swans are white' Carnap vs Popper

In a 1954 paper Popper sought to point out serious erroneous arguments by Carnap, John Maynard Keynes, H. Reichenbach.Template:Rp Template:Reflist-talk which he later elaborated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

In his 1950 publication, Rudolf Carnap used the example phrase, "All swans are white" to illustrate what he called an 'unrestricted simple law' - a sentence that "speaks in a purely general way about the individuals of the system in question without referring to any particular individual." Carnap's 'unrestricted simple law' is likened to Popper's use of 'All swans are white' as a 'strictly universal statement.' When This is distinguished from restricted simple laws which apply "to all individuals with the exclusion of some specified individuals," e.g., "With the exception of a certain kind of swan found only in Australia, all swans are white." Template:Reflist-talk

Popper used the example of the black swan in his argument on falsifiability in The Logic of Scientific Discovery invoking David Hume. Template:Reflist-talk

'Popper rewrote his book in English from the 1934 German original'

I don't think that statement is correct. A rewrite suggests significant changes to the original. But LoSD is a direct translation - Popper even states in the translators' notes:

Dahauns (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I don't know... The following paragraph explains that the English version adds appendixes and notes with corrections, expansions, and author's changes of mind, so maybe the base text was only translated, but I'm not sure about the whole product. Certainly it would have been a second edition if the original had been in English and all the new material had been incorporated into the main text. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)