عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
Critical rationalism is an approach to biological behavior, and especially to science, that has been introduced by Karl Popper. But his views on the rejection of induction and justification have met with opposition from Susan Haacke as a philosopher of logic. In this article, we will evaluate Haacke's view of Popper's views as logical negativity, and show that Haacke makes every effort to maintain justification methods in various interpretations and forms, mostly under the shadow of induction. We will also show that Haacke's critique of Popper, due to his tendency to justify, suffers from some psychological and semantic confusion with epistemological issues. In response, we will see that Popper denies the connection between rationality and justification, and essentially considers justification impossible, and proposes a three-step model, including problem-solving, finding innovative solutions to the problem, and eliminating some of which there is no need for justification. And there is no supporting evidence. The product of such an approach would be to present creative conjectures and conjectures that, while accepting the existence of an ideal truth and a reality outside our minds, do not establish any relation of reality or truth to the hypotheses, and as a result We will be safe from the problems of justification. That is why we are always ready to criticize our solutions and take a more modest position on our hypotheses and theories.