Popper's falsificationism is a theory on scientific methodology and a criterion to separate scientific propositions from unscientific ones. Contrary to inductive method, it does not seek to prove the conclusive truth or even inconclusive and probable truth of scientific theories based on psychological self-evidence of observable and so-called basic propositions. Therefore, theories always remain at the level of conjecture and guessing. However, they can be approximately true guessing, although they are not absolutely or probably true conjectures.The concept of "approximate truth" or "more approximation to truth" is closely related to the reinforcement of propositions, degree of reality-showing or truthshowing, and scientific progress. Such an idea at least necessitates accepting the doctrine of correspondence between truth and realism about the existence of universe and scientific identities independent from men's minds. However, critics claim that Popperian falsificationism and scientific realism are incompatible and one is actually given up at the expense the other. Some scholars believe that realism is at most more compatible with positivism and others hold that falsificationism necessitates the rejection of essentialism and as a result necessitates unrealistic instrumentalism. The present paper tries to elaborate on these claims.

In the present article, we have discussed the objections of critics raised by post-processualists from processual school and mentioned this point that their alternative, borrowing its basic ideas from the social sciences which have different theoretical nature, caused the present chaotic situation in the theoretical fields of archaeology. In spite of mentioning the problems of positively attitude of Processual Archaeology, it is argued that one by one refusal of this attitude’ s ideas and acceptance of Post-Processual is not good solution. Post-processualist archaeology is seeking to change the archaeological research as a scientific practice to any type of a literature, story-telling with high-level potentiality of individual interpretation that one of its samples is shown at extremist culturalism of phenomenological viewpoint to the landscape archaeology. Archaeologists have access to neither the concepts behind the objects nor the mental values and social structures of the individuals created by them. To set our goals, the precondition is to recognize limitations. According to adopt normative and ideally principles, Post-processualists choose an ideological (anti-realistic) approach to study cultures and due to self-contradictory expression of this meta-induction that all scientific theories are individual and wrong, refuse the science as a reliable foundation for researches. It’ s amazing that their alternative is a severely value-laden approach that is derived from human sciences along with biased interpretations and in this way, they are under an only obligation of contemporaneous ethical principles. The important problem of these notions is that they have no concern about the concept of progress in our knowledge of the past and they have nothing to do with new knowledge. Therefore, in the second part, it has been tried to design a new theoretical background beyond the positively difficulties of the processual approach that guarantees the progress towards the better interpretation of archaeological data. Based on the Popper’ s account of science in philosophy of science, we took a compatible version of sophisticated falsificationism which suggested a new theoretical foundation with cohesive epistemological and methodological territories for Archaeology. According to this account of science, each new theory should be as a challenge for the earlier one by showing its flaws, trying to dismiss it, and at the same time having the ability to reach to its achievements. This new approach with adopting the principles of bold and novel hypotheses and predictions, testable and falsifiable propositions, deductive logics, clearly stated and precise theories and rejecting the ad hoc modifications in them have a high capability of providing an excellent framework for archaeologists. This statement is just practical and compatible with the scientific approach of this discipline and its limitation to the material world. Archaeological finds have some typical specifications like materiality, partiality, and being static. Consequently, the methods of extraction should be matchable to them. Given that the nature of archaeological materials is adaptable to the methodology which has been used later by processualists, but according to the suggested epistemology these methods would be used in a non-positivistic setting, and in the direction of falsifying the new theories. As a result, the schemes of researches can practically be shaped away from post-modern relativism and positivistic absolutism. Furthermore, this standpoint does not assume theories as the eternal laws of absolute single truth as positivistic approach does. Rather by considering the inventory character of the hypotheses against the background knowledge of its time, it attaches the significance of the confirmation broadly to the historical setting of the theories. Therefore, it presents a plural and far more moderate insight of science with a huge concern for the concept of progress in knowledge.

The interpretation and application of the Qur'an with the help of experimental sciences has always been popular among the early and late scholars of the Qur'an and has brought positive achievements. The theory of falsity in Popper's critical realism, as one of the influential views in the field of modern philosophy of science, has always been criticized by some Western and Muslim philosophers. The main question of the present article, which has been written in a fundamental, descriptive, analytical and experimental way, is what are the most basic actions of Popper's theory of falsity on scientific interpretation from the perspective of Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. The result of the present study is the five cases of opposition of the above theory to the "principles" of scientific interpretation of the Qur'an. Such as the meaninglessness of metaphysics, the opposition of infinite conjectures and falsifications that do not reach the final truth to the infallibility of the concepts of the Qur'an, etc., And the five instances of incompatibility of this theory with the "rules" of scientific interpretation of the Qur'an, such as not accepting the scientificity of partial and possible empirical propositions from the perspective of the theory of falsity and its validity in the Holy Qur'an, etc.

Examining his works, the paper is on attempt to analyze Karl Raimund Popper's views on the philosophy of social science. It first presents briefly his life, concerns and problems as well as introduces those great men who influenced on his opinions, such as Socrates, Kant, Hayek, etc. Next, it explains Popper's opinion on the single method in the natural and social sciences. Still next, it offers Popper's criticism on inductivists. Then, it propounds the suggested solutions and mentions their faults. The author tries to discuss Popper' philosophical problems in detail and present them in a clear way.

Background and Purpose: Nowadays since Traditional Medicine has received a remarkable amount of public notice in Iran, many scattered controversies have occurred about scientificity of Traditional Medicine. In order to analyze this question rationally it is necessary to determine the criteria of scientificity exactly and based on the most important philosophical theories at first. In this domain there have been three important theories which consist of Inductivism, having paradigm and falsificationism. So far two articles have been published by the author in which scientificity of Traditional Medicine have been analyzed based on inductivism and having Paradigm. Now in this article the third criterion i.e. falsifiability and its existence in Traditional Medicine is going to be analyzed philosophically in order to prove that Traditional Medicine has all of the most important criteria in the philosophy of science of 20th century. Falsifibility is one of the most important and influential theories about scientificity in the 20th century. This theory is produced by Karl Popper which at first criticizes the inductivists' point of view and offers Falsificationism instead. This article is introducing and analyzing this theory and the concept of falsifiability at first and is showing that the Iranian Traditional Medicine is falsifiable and therefore is science from this point of view.Methods and Materials: This article is going to introduce exactly the Falsifiability based on the most famous books written by Karl Popper; then shows that the Iranian Traditional Medicine's system is falsifiable and therefore is science. The research is Library- based.Results: The Iranian Traditional Medicine is science based on Falsificationists' criterion.

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been.  My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today.

One may say that The Open Society and Its Enemies (OS) offered in 1945 the first complete elaboration of the general approach proposed by Karl Popper, namely his ‘critical rationalism’, a bold generalization of the fallibilist falsificationism in the domain of the empirical sciences masterly proposed in Logik der Forschung (1934). The political content of The OS has been critically discussed. Nevertheless, not all people insist on the equally important moral dimension of the book, giving it its unity, I submit. Without morality, no critical discussion, no reason, no open society, let us say in a nutshell. I would argue that according to Popper, a strictly Christian morality of love would not be the appropriate emotional companion of critical rationalism, but that the less demanding moral emotion of sympathy or compassion is perhaps necessary to give it its force against violence. I give some support to this line of argument. In my view, Popper proposed a somewhat unarticulated critical rationalist ‘emotivism’ of sorts. The emotion of compassion is necessary for triggering our moral decisions and values, which are the ultimate basis of the choice for a reason against violence.

The epistemic structure of Karl Popper's (1902-1994) socio-political theory, as a theoretical model of Western reformers and human utopia, is based on the falsification method in his philosophy of science; The present study intends to rationally disprove this method. Method: This research was carried out between the fields of political philosophy and philosophical epistemology, using a library and descriptive-critical method. Results : Popper's method of falsification as a criterion of scientific nature of all his empirical and political-social theories is directly related to all the implications of the theory of open society (= negative liberal democracy); Components such as: critical wisdom, negation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and emphasis on tolerance, as well as epistemological and religious pluralism; with the logical refutation of this method, the open society theory is also distorted. Conclusion: The method of rational, discovery and experimental positivism based on the possibility and necessity of acquiring certain knowledge, which is emphasized by Muslim political and social philosophers, is superior to Popery's falsificationism method.

Objectives: The aim of the present survey is to critique the theoretical foundations of "open society theory" or "negative liberal democracy" of Karl PopperMethod: The goal of the research is achieved through   epistemological critique and refutation of the method of refutation in Popper's philosophy of science. Results : Although Popper in his theory calls for the realization of a society based on the acceptance of individual originality, the centrality of law and equality against it, democracy and freedom, but the condition for the realization of all these principles was only the manifestation of human will. His theory is based on the assumption of "three worlds" in ontology, "falsificationism" in the philosophy of science, and "transformation of certainty" in epistemology, and in contrast to this theory, there is the theory of religious democracy, which in the reading of pure Islam, The basis for accepting the origin, resurrection, and status of the divine caliph of man is based on ontological "realism," "empirical, rational, and revelatory positivism" in the philosophy of science, and "the possibility and necessity of certainty" in epistemology. Conclusion: The results of the present article can reveal the paradox in the claim of "negative step-by-step reforms" proposed by Popper reformers in the Islamic world and Islamic Iran, and an approach to one of the most fundamental and historical issues in the field of political philosophy, namely " "The foundations of legitimacy in the realization and survival of government." 

This paper shows how Hegel’s misconception of truth and knowledge misled his ideas of Absolute spirit, dialectically reinforced dogmatism and irrational historicism toward his disastrous conclusion of a “totalitarian playbook”. Analysis by Hegel scholars is presented and contrasted with Popper’s Critical Rationalism-based critiques. Hegel held a version of Correspondence for everyday truth plus a deeper “philosophical” truth, similar to essence, which could be unified with consciousness. This is compared to Popper’s anti-essentialism. Hegel’s dialectical theory is contrasted to Popper’s falsificationism. Popper showed that dialectical method produced historical relativism. Hegel’s Philosophy of Identity, yielding the dialectical Idealism of “what is reasonable must be real”, led to “might is right” with emergence of nations by fighting for domination on the stage of history. Popper credited Hegel with formulating the “playbook of totalitarianism”, used lethally by followers of Hegelian Left and Right. Inversion Theory claims the word “true”, implying completeness, certainty, and self-consistency, is applicable only to the objective world. Perception of it, acquired by an evolved biological process (Active Subjectivism), incorporates essential falsehood, yielding “best knowledge” of reality. It solves problems related to the regulatory, statistical, evidentiary, inconstant and even indexical nature of knowledge. Only the Inversion theory exposes the errors of dialecticism: since it involves subjective concepts, it is impossible for a true synthesis plus its negative antithesis to give a true synthesis. The historical process of the Zeitgeist contains falsehood, the cunning of reason to move the spirit forward is uncertain, and nobody can perform the truth for their time.