Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science: An Objection
There seems to be a serious logical problem with his "solution" to induction. Namely, that as a practical matter any scientific theory being tested experimentally rests on yet further scientific theory. If we are observing a phenomenon meant to confirm special relativity, we most likely are simultaneously relying on optics---we are probably using a telescope. Now, while this might seem like an impractical bit of nit-picking, how is the committed Popperian supposed to know which of the theories is to be discarded? And if he can't make the choice on the basis of some rational principle, how can science progress?