I’m not sure how one would act based on this. Should one conduct new experiments differently given this knowledge of which theories are preferred? Should one write papers about how awesome the theory is?
It’s a loose guideline for people about where it may be fruitful to look. It can also be used in critical arguments if/when people think of arguments that use it.
One of the differences between Popper and Bayesian Epistemology is that Popper thinks being overly formal is a fault not a merit. Much of Popper’s philosophy does not consist of formal, rigorous guidelines to be followed exactly. Popper isn’t big on rules of procedure. A lot is explanation. Some is knowledge to use on your own. Some is advice.
It’s a loose guideline for people about where it may be fruitful to look. It can also be used in critical arguments if/when people think of arguments that use it.
One of the differences between Popper and Bayesian Epistemology is that Popper thinks being overly formal is a fault not a merit. Much of Popper’s philosophy does not consist of formal, rigorous guidelines to be followed exactly. Popper isn’t big on rules of procedure. A lot is explanation. Some is knowledge to use on your own. Some is advice.