My questions are: As the questioner of the link above, Popper's way is in sort, to me fell into the "theory for the theory itself about which itself is exception from anything.
Since he thought he should consider it as a "true science" only if the subjective theory can endure his test as many as possible ( here is the trick ), to me consequently there is no end since he did not formulate how many times should the theory endure his test.
Today it is basically invaluable to several important subfields of biology.
He made significant contributions to debates concerning general scientific methodology and theory choice, the demarcation of science from non-science, the nature of probability and quantum mechanics, and the methodology of the social sciences. Popper's work, and particularly his theory that the property of falsifiability separates the scientific from the non-scientific.However, it struck me that this theory does not meet the conditions it sets out to impose on others; in short, it does not appear to be falsifiable itself.His parents, who were of Jewish origin, brought him up in an atmosphere which he was later to describe as ‘decidedly bookish’.His father was a lawyer by profession, but he also took a keen interest in the classics and in philosophy, and communicated to his son an interest in social and political issues which he was to never lose. Subsequently, his love for music became one of the inspirational forces in the development of his thought, and manifested itself in his highly original interpretation of the relationship between dogmatic and critical thinking, in his account of the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, and, most importantly, in the growth of his hostility towards all forms of historicism, including historicist ideas about the nature of the ‘progressive’ in music.