The Relevance and Complexities of Karl Popper´s Thought in Scientific Practice
Abstract
Karl Raimond Popper (1902-1994) was a Viennese philosopher and political scientist who had a profound influence on Western thought due to his contributions to epistemology, politics, science, and religion. His most significant, and also most controversial contribution was "falsificationism", expounded in his book "Conjectures and Refutations." Considered the foremost exponent of critical rationalism, which epistemologically stands in stark contrast to classical inductivism, Popper argued that theories are constructed and validated through a continuous effort to find exceptions, rather than through the search for and collection of confirmatory results. Instead of a bottom-up process from observation to theory (an essential feature of inductivism), critical rationalism conceives science as a top-down process for testing theories. This article aims to reaffirm the relevance of Popperian thought, while also pointing out some of its inconsistencies for research practice, particularly in the medical and health sciences at a time when the misuse of computer resources, including artificial intelligence, undermines the credibility of scientific output and calls into question the integrity of researchers. The fundamental purpose is to argue for the compatibility of falsificationism with a process that progresses through stages of exploration, confirmation, and verification of hypotheses, all within a comprehensive vision of research ethics.
Keywords: critical rationalism; inductivism; validation of science; quality of science; scientific method; research ethics; epistemological fundamentalism; Popper's philosophy; scientific fraud.
Downloads
References
1. Popper K. La Lógica de la Investigación científica. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos; 1980.
2. Popper K. Conjeturas y refutaciones. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Paidós; 1991.
3. Fuller S. A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition: The Name of the Game. En su: The Popperian Legacy: From Falsification to Critical Openness. London: Anthem Press; 2021.
4. Musgrave A. Popper and the Search for Truth. En: Jarvie I, Milford K, Miller D, eds. Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment. London: Routledge. 2016. Pp. 101-20.
5. Hacohen MH. The Popperian Revolution in Philosophy of Science and Its Contemporary Significance. En: Gattei S, ed. Karl Popper: A Centenary Assessment. London: Routledge; 2020. Pp. 45-68.
6. Plevris V. From integrity to inflation: Ethical and unethical citation practices in academic publishing. Journal of Academic Ethics [Internet]. 2025; 23(4): 1847–77. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-025-09456-7
7. Office of Research Integrity. Ethically questionable citation practices. [Internet]. EE UU: Department of Health & Human Services, 2014. Disponible en: https://ori.hhs.gov
8. Reis D, Friese M. The myriad forms of p-hacking. En: O’Donohue W, Masuda A, Lilienfeld S, eds. Avoiding questionable research practices in applied psychology [Internet]. London: Springer Nature; 2022. Pp. 101–121. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04968-2_5
9. Head M, Holman L, Lanfear R, Kahn AT, Jennions MD. The extent and consequences of p-hacking in science. PLOS Biology [Internet]. 2015; 13(3): e1002106. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002106
10. Elasan S. P-hacking in scientific research: Is the reliability of scientific results at risk?. Journal of Statistics & Applied Sciences. 2025; 11(1): 45–53.
11. Godfrey-Smith P. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. En su: Popper: Conjecture and Refutation. EE UU: University of Chicago Press; 2021.
12. Schick T, Vaughn L. Close Encounters with the Strange: The Nature of Hypothesis. En su: How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. London: McGraw-Hill; 2020.
13. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. EE UU: Government Printing Office; 1979.
14. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA [Internet]. 2024; 310 (20): 2191–4. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
15. Kline RB. Beyond Significance Testing: Statistics Reform in the Behavioral Sciences En su: The Role of Statistical Hypotheses in Research. EE UU: American Psychological Association; 2018.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jorge Bacallao Gallestey
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Aquellos autores/as que tengan publicaciones con esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes:
- Los autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra, el cuál estará simultáneamente sujeto a la Licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional que permite a terceros compartir la obra siempre que se indique su autor y su primera publicación esta revista.
- Los autores/as podrán adoptar otros acuerdos de licencia no exclusiva de distribución de la versión de la obra publicada (p. ej.: depositarla en un archivo telemático institucional o publicarla en un volumen monográfico) siempre que se indique la publicación inicial en esta revista.
- Se permite y recomienda a los autores/as difundir su obra a través de Internet (p. ej.: en archivos telemáticos institucionales o en su página web) antes y durante el proceso de envío, lo cual puede producir intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de la obra publicada. (Véase El efecto del acceso abierto).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
