We have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory. [...] The new tendency is to discard proofs, and with them, any kind of rational argument. With the romantics, a new kind of dogmatism becomes fashionable, in philosophy as well as in the social sciences. It confronts us with its dictum. And we can take it or leave it. [...] But although proof does not play any part in the empirical sciences, argument still does; indeed, its part is at least as important as that played by observation and experiment.
I feel tempted to downvote for the claim that argument’s part is “at least as important as that played by observation and experiment,” since this seems to tremendously overprivilege a clever arguer, but I’m refraining because my negative affect may mainly be a holdover from Curi and the Popperclipping incident.
Karl Popper: The Problem of Induction.
I feel tempted to downvote for the claim that argument’s part is “at least as important as that played by observation and experiment,” since this seems to tremendously overprivilege a clever arguer, but I’m refraining because my negative affect may mainly be a holdover from Curi and the Popperclipping incident.