科学发现的逻辑就是没有逻辑 "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" There Is No Logic

“试错”和“证伪”都不是什么“科学发现的逻辑”，最多只能算作“科学实证的逻辑”。那么，问题就来了——为何作者卡尔·波普尔没有老老实实地写上“科学实证的逻辑”，而要指鹿为马地叫做“科学发现的逻辑”呢？我认为，这不过是一种同样低劣的市场营销手段，怪不得得到了市场营销的叫好。 实际上，“科学发现”从来都是没有逻辑的、意外的突破，经常都是“傻瓜撞大运”、“瞎猫碰上了死耗子”。 Executive summary "Trial and error" and "falsification" are not the "logic of scientific discovery". At best, they can only be regarded as "the logic of scientific empirical evidence." So, the question arises - why did the author Karl Popper not honestly write "the logic of scientific empirical evidence", but instead called it "the logic of scientific discovery"? In my opinion, this is just an equally poor marketing technique, no wonder it gets the plaudits from marketing. In fact, "scientific discoveries" are always illogical and unexpected breakthroughs. They are often "a fool hits great luck" or a "blind cat hits a dead mouse."