Even though I think the author's understanding of science is hopelessly out of date (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was published in 1962, for heaven's sake) I still think it's work a look as the sort of argument that can be advanced in favour over open access (we don't need Popperian science to make the case, it just provides colour). (If you're wondering what's wrong with Popper: he says scientific theories are based on falsifiability, but falsifiability itself depends on facts, which results in a circular justification - if confirmation doesn't work, falsification doesn't either, and if confirmation works, we don't need falsification).
Today: 1 Total: 16 [Direct link] [Share]
