Fecha de nacimiento: 28. Julio 1902
Fecha de muerte: 17. Septiembre 1994
Karl Raimund Popper fue un filósofo y teórico de la ciencia, de origen judío, nacido en Austria, aunque más tarde se convirtió en ciudadano británico.
Fuente: La filosofía oracular y la rebelión contra la razón. [ref. incompleta]
Fuente: «Popper afirma que "el marxismo murió de marxismo"» http://elpais.com/diario/1992/03/07/cultura/699922801_850215.html El País.
Fuente: [Rioja], Ana. «Einstein: el ideal de una ciencia sin sujeto.» Revista de Filosofía. N.º 2/87-108 (3.ª época), p. 89. Editorial Universidad Complutense. Madrid, 1989. https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RESF/article/view/RESF8989110087A/12252 Revistas Científicas Complutenses. Consultado el 6 de noviembre de 2019.
Fuente: POPPER, K. (1985). Teoría cuántica y el cisma en fisica. Madrid. Tecnos.
— Karl Popper, libro The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Fuente: The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Ch. 1 "A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems", Section I: The Problem of Induction
Contexto: 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 Popper, libro The Open Society and Its Enemies
Preface to the First Edition
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
Contexto: If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them. It springs rather from my conviction that, if our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men may make great mistakes; and as the book tries to show, some of the greatest leaders of the past supported the perennial attack on freedom and reason. Their influence, too rarely challenged, continues to mislead those on whose defence civilization depends, and to divide them. The responsibility of this tragic and possibly fatal division becomes ours if we hesitate to be outspoken in our criticism of what admittedly is a part of our intellectual heritage. By reluctance to criticize some of it, we may help to destroy it all.
— Karl Popper, libro The Open Society and Its Enemies
Vol. 2, Ch. 24 "Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt against Reason"
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
Contexto: ... the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars, and to the saving of souls through the inquisition. And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. It is our duty to help those who need help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions.
In Search of a Better World (1984)
Contexto: Why do I think that we, the intellectuals, are able to help? Simply because we, the intellectuals, have done the most terrible harm for thousands of years. Mass murder in the name of an idea, a doctrine, a theory, a religion — that is all our doing, our invention: the invention of the intellectuals. If only we would stop setting man against man — often with the best intentions — much would be gained. Nobody can say that it is impossible for us to stop doing this.
