I just have to mention that I recently encountered a lovely and very readable articulation of one view of the (proper) aims of science [1]. This in turn led me to read It made me wonder if Popper might be of little use to someone who has adopted (what Popper calls) an instrumentalist view of science, or of the role of their chosen discipline (statistics, say) within science. If we eschew an interest in theories (particularly bold ones) and in explanation, if there is no deeper reality than what is immediately presented in the data tables, then why why should Popper’s ideas matter?
- Popper KR. Ch 5: The Aim of Science. In: Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Rev. ed. Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press; 1979:191-205. http://www.bretthall.org/uploads/3/1/2/9/31298571/karl_r._popper_-_the_aim_of_science.pdf