Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica” as Want to Read:
A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating

A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica

3.99 of 5 stars 3.99  ·  rating details  ·  2,913 ratings  ·  55 reviews
Neste livro, um dos mais importantes filósofos da Ciência em nosso século traça um quadro impressionante do caráter lógico da pesquisa científica, quadro que faz plena justiça à revolução einsteiniana na física e ao seu enorme impacto sobre o pensamento científico em geral. Aqui não se apresenta a Ciência como empenhada em fabricar engenhocas ou em coletar observações para ...more
Paperback, 567 pages
Published 2007 by Cultrix (first published 1934)
more details... edit details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)
filter  |  sort: default (?)  |  rating details
If it was 400 pages shorter, I'd give it 5 stars.

Popper makes his point quickly and emphatically on the merits of deductive reasoning versus inductive and its use in scientific research. Unfortunately, he continues to give examples to reiterate his point. Reading the first 50 pages is good enough. But, it's a good book for any and all graduate students in the scientific field to have on a bookshelf (particularly at the bench).
"I define the empirical content of a statement p as the class of its potential falsifiers. The logical content is defined, with the help of the concept of derivability, as the class of all non-tautological statements which are derivable from the statement in question. So the logical content of p is at least equal to that of a statement q, if q is derivable from p."

If you liked that, you'll looooove this book!
Anoush Margaryan
It's a brilliant book, although the English translation could have been better. Many fascinating ideas that will be useful even (or perhaps I should say especially) to social scientists. Someone above commented that Popper over-reiterates his criticism of inductive logic - but one has to remember that this book was written in a time when psychologism was dominating the discourse. And today, when all sorts of superstitions and general lack of critical thinking are rife in many disciplines as well ...more
Zawn Villines
If Karl Popper were still alive, he would kill E.O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Richard Wrangham. And we would all be better for it. Come back, Karl Popper, and save us from the scientific masturbators.
I studied this while in grad school. My thesis, which never got much beyond the notes stage, used Popper and other epistemologies to examine the difference between "natural" sciences and "social" sciences. The basic hypothesis was that the latter rested on "essentially contested" propositions. For example, Galileo's observations of the solar system and the conclusions he drew therefrom depended on the underlying theory of optics being correct. Since both the theory and instruments were new and c ...more
Robb Wirthlin
I volunteered to read this book in my PhD Doctoral Seminar because I thought my German language abilities would help me further understand Karl Popper.

It didn't.

Here's my review:

Grappling with underlying ideas of how science is “discovered” and the underlying problems that exist with new knowledge? Sir Karl Popper’s book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, directly addresses these issues and additionally tackles a theme important to philosophy – epistemology or the growth of knowledge. A critica
I've been wanting to read this since Dr. Steinhoff's Philosophy of Science class at USU turned me on to Popper and Feyerabend and the boys in the year 2000. The beginning and the end were amazing (5 stars), but I wasn't smart enough for the meat in the middle. I really like the idea of falsification. We would be better off if we all tried to disprove our ideas logically thus testing their strength instead of just holding our ground knowing we are right and God is on our side.
M Pereira
There is too much to say about this book so I might summarise the real highlights:

1. Popper elucidates and defends against critics the thesis of Falsificationism.
2. As well as the idea about falsification that everyone knows about, Popper constructs a probability model which is made from the tools of modern logic to create an epistemology of science, its very complicated stuff and I only understood about 2% of it.
3. Popper should be understood in terms of the people he is responding to: JM Keyn
This is a difficult book. Popper assumes a lot of knowledge in the reader regarding probability theory, quantum mechanics, and logic. It's not a work for the layman. As such, the entire chapter on probability (the lengthiest chapter, if I recall) was beyond my grasp. As was the chapter on quantum theory. Many of the appendices were highly technical in nature and were, too, incomprehensible to me. Regardless, Popper's demarcation criterion of falsifiability separating empirical science from metap ...more
Arys Aditya
Biasanya, Popper dikenal lewat bukunya, Open Societies and It's Enemies, padahal buku itu, bagi saya, adalah sekuel dari buku ini. Benar, saya menaydari bahwa buku inilah akar pemikiran Popper yang menjelaskan duduk perkara kenapa ia begitu mencintai demokrasi dan tidak menginginkan totalitarisme berkuasa.
Akan tetapi jangan lupakan, buku ini juga adalah salah satu perintis aliran filsafat ilmu. Lewat konsepnya yang terkenal, yakni falsifikasi, Popper adalah salah satu filsuf cum ilmuwan yang har
Elliott Bignell
Popper enjoys a reputation as the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century. This book, in which he elucidated the doctrine of falsification still espoused by prominent scientific commentators like Richard Dawkins and endorsed by most scientists, went a long way to establishing that reputation. I would go so far as to say that you cannot understand a keystone in the philosophy of science without reading this work.

This is not an easy book to read - it is a little mathematical here and there, and t
The middle section is too technical for me. I am reading a book on logic in the hope it might help me. It is worth sticking with as popper sums everything up well at the end. i knew the ideas, but had forgotten them in my work. the belief in induction is still very prevalent among young scientists who feels constrained by the feeling that they cannot speculate about things and that science is a dry subject that progresses in small incremental steps devoid of wonder and imagination. for popper sc ...more
Yasiru (reviews will soon be removed and linked to blog)
The Popular Popper series appears to be missing on the Goodreads database. I'll leave this link for the companion to the present work till such time as this is rectified-

I find this lecture by Popper a great introduction to his work in general-
If you want to understand the meaning of science,this is a must read.
Tim Patrick
This book is not for the faint of heart. It is a serious book discussing the philosophy of scientific experimentation, and is filled with formulas, Greek letters, and hundreds of pages of end notes. Just to be clear: Einstein liked this book, so you need to be prepared for its complexity. His core idea is that theories are only actual science when they can be subjected to falsifiable experiments. That is, you have to be able to prove a theory wrong for it to be valid, at least in terms of good s ...more
90% of the value of Popper today, especially for the non-scientist is in the first part of the book. Popper reconciles Kant's observations about how the world is ultimately filtered through the lenses of space and time with a fundamentally empiricist, materialist sense of reality. While I disagree with some of his assertions-- especially his complete disavowal of inductive reasoning, and his general disregard for non-scientific knowledge-- I respect his method and, as a fellow empiricist, believ ...more
The most elegant response to Hume's problem of induction I've read thus far. Karl Popper writes with great conversational clarity, which makes this an exhilarating and unexpectedly fast read. Basic knowledge about Hume, Kant, Newton, Einstein, 20th century Positivism (Note: Popper is not a fan of positivism) would be helpful when first approaching this, but even though the book's arguments can get dense and complex, it's very easy to follow the thread that runs through each chapter; anyone can ( ...more
El trabajo mas importante de Karl Popper, en el explica con gran claridad su visión respecto a la ciencia como un sistema ordenado de hipótesis y conjeturas y no de conocimiento (episteme) ,el criterio de demarcación y la necesidad de falsificación en las teorías científicas para poder ser tomadas como tal es posiblemente su aporte mas importante a la filosofía de la ciencia.

Durante el libro se critica duramente la filosofía positivista y atomista particularmente representada en algunos puntos p
Fil Krynicki
I must admit, I gave up 25% through Karl Popper's formulation of probability theory. It seemed to be retreading a great deal of ground quite slowly. I don't doubt that there is value there, but I am perhaps not so interested in a logically-based theory of probability as I supposed. I hope to return to this, some day, if only to read his thoughts of the decideability of probablity statements, which was that which motivated me to foray beyond falsification in the first place.

The core tenet of fals
This is not an easy-to-read book. I've read Popper's 'Open society and its Enemies' and that was a lot easier going. However, this is Popper's definitive work on the difference between science and non-science, and how to tell them apart. When you hear scientists refer to Popper they are referring to this book.

He also delves into the thinking behind probability theory and interestingly questions some of the fundamental assumptions there, and then goes on to apply those ideas to quantum physics an
This is a great book for those interested in the Philosophy of Science but it gets a bit difficult with al of the equations. But as an admirer of science it is essential to understanding how hypotheses are formed and revised. It also is incredibly generous in its updating of maxims concerning the idol of certainty and demonstrable knowledge. With specific experiments to illustrate the point the delve into some deep quantum theory. Some of it is definitely out of my league and be forewarned about ...more
"He turned the pages hoping to understand . . .

. . .

But nothing happened."

I guess it is probably a falsifiable statement that it is impossible for me to understand what Popper is talking about after the first chapter, but I am not really sure.

Popper uses lots of math and mathematical concepts and allusions to the work of his contemporaries without explaining what's going on. Probably a really great book if you are Karl Popper. (Corroboration: He seems to have enjoyed reading and rereading it a
Steven Williams
Good content, but dry delivery.
A fundamental book for the philosophy of science. The central idea is that the most valuable theories are those that can be tested, and the purpose of science is to propose those hypotheses that are simple (in the dimension of their parameters), more universal and more precise, and then try as hard as posible to falsify them.

It's ideas on probability theory seem dated, but a better appraisal is due from my part. But that should wait until I read through Kolmogorov and Jaynes main works.
John Peralta
Karl Popper is a leading philosopher of science. In this book he introduced the concept of falsifiability. Put simply, no theory can be considered a scientific theory unless it can be scrutinized through testing in such a way that it is possible for the test to fail. If it is not possible to design a test that could fail, the theory is not testable and therefore would not qualify as scientific.
Extremely interesting, if very hard to get through at times. In particular, I really found his arguments on falsifiability's role in science, and the role of probability in science thought provoking. I will definitely have to revisit this book sometime in the near future. This is definitely required reading for anyone working in a physical science or in a field that believes it is scientific.
Premal Vora
The best and most lucid description of the scientific method. The scientific method as it is understood today has been very closely associated with philosopher Karl Popper and his followers. When you find out that in school your kid is being taught the "scientific method" this is what they are talking about. A book that has been on my shelf for 20 years. A classic.
This is where the nightmare of relativistic thinking begins; excellent in theory but just like knowldge of a spherical Earth it makes sense in la la land only. Let's face it, for all intensive purposes in daily practise we treat the earth as flat; to do otherwise would be ridiculous no?
Alaa Bahabri
الفصول الاولى في الكتاب، جميلة وتسلط الضوء بشكل عمومي على فكرة الفيلسوف،،كارل بوبر ، لكن من القسم الثاني، يصبح الكتاب صعباً، و الأمثلة تخصصية في علوم الرياضيات والفيزيا،،
لغة الكتاب غير سلسة على الإطلاق، ولا أعرف هل المشكلة في الترجمة أم نفس الكتاب الأصلي
I am not convinced by Popper on most of the big issues here; I think I side more with Kuhn on most, but it's hard to deny that this book is remarkable, that Popper's arguments are crisp and solid, and that without this book, much would be very, very different today.
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 99 100 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »
  • Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
  • Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery
  • Word and Object
  • Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues
  • Naming and Necessity
  • Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science
  • The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
  • The Two Cultures & A Second Look: An Expanded Version of The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution
  • Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science
  • The Concept of Mind
  • Principia Ethica (Philosophical Classics)
  • Language, Truth, and Logic
  • Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction
  • The Foundations of Arithmetic: A Logico-Mathematical Enquiry into the Concept of Number
  • The View from Nowhere
  • Reason, Truth and History
  • Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
  • On Certainty
Sir Karl Raimund Popper CH, FRS, FBA (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is counted among the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. Popper is known for repudiating the classical observationalist/inductivist account of sc ...more
More about Karl Popper...
The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 1 : The Spell of Plato The Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume Two: Hegel and Marx Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge The Poverty of Historicism The Open Society and Its Enemies

Share This Book

“For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man's knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from an obscurantist faith in the expert's special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority.” 31 likes
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” 8 likes
More quotes…