The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Without this clarity, the hypothesis risks becoming what philosopher Karl Popper would call a “metaphysical research program” (Popper 2014)—influential but ultimately unfalsifiable.”
From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Popper 2014
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x · Cited by 899
How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or LessAd HocTheories will Provide More Accurate Predictions
FORSTER, M., & Sober, E. R. (1994) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/45.1.1 · Cited by 661
Yarkoni, T. (2022) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x20001685 · Cited by 701
Countering antivaccination attitudes
Horne, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1504019112 · Cited by 350
A checklist for maximizing reproducibility of ecological niche models
Feng, X., Park, D. S., Walker, C., Peterson, A. T., Merow, C., & Papeş, M. (2019) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0972-5 · Cited by 323
Metadata
- Authors
- Popper, K.
- Corresponding author
- Popper, Karl
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2014-05-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 2
- OpenAlex
- W3126953938
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 14.52
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › History and Theory of Mathematics
- Keywords
- conjecture, refutation, scientific reasoning, hypothesis testing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
