You should absolutely check my videos against the original texts and make up your own mind! All my videos are meant to be viewed in combination with doing the actual reading. I'm afraid I couldn't get far in this text with charity. That is not universally true for Popper, by the way; his text on determinism, for instance, is quite interesting.
"A positive test raises our acceptance of the theory" ... according to what metric ? Some subjective feeling ? Certainly not probability calculus (the negation of a theory is not a theory but according to the metric of probability it should have a 1-p probability of being true OR there is an infinite amount of possible theories that can explain the same evidence hence all theories should have probability zero which is impossible). It is such an easy argument from the baysian "i need to have a prior and a credence but I cannot give you an objective metric for how that positive acceptance of theories works". This is the same as engaging in pseudoscience.
According to the metric that we can utilize it as an extension of our senses. Think about this through an analogy of your five senses. We know our five senses sometimes give us inconsistent sensations however we don't directly reject them for knowing this fact that they are not perfect. Science is just like this theory only has meaning through its utilization in praxis. In science the paradigms of true and false have a drastically different meaning than their metaphysical meaning in symbolic logic, even though a lot of scientists behave as if this is not the case. When scientists talk about a theory being true that is an act, praxis, that serves the utilization of the theory as an extension of our senses. And no it is not caused by subjective feeling. It is caused by tons of subjective feelings that clash and result in the cancellation of those individualities. Science cannot be isolated from its practitioners who are just human and make mistakes. Just like when we are trying agree on something our senses tell us. The first thing if we were to see something demonic would be to ask someone else whether they saw it as well. If we are going to talk about subjectivities and if you think Popper is free of such sacrilegious acts : ) you would be wrong. Popper obviously didn't know the relation between theory and experiment because according to him a finding, even if it doesn't justify the theory, that doesn't falsify it exists. However he doesn't answer what that would be. Even in physics which is the most "precise" of all sciences even in the Popperian sense perhaps there are no findings that perfectly fit with the theory. There is always some noise that is hypothetically accounted for and later most probably ignored until if it becomes significant enough to revolutionize our praxis through and in science. Popper is just a magician who behaves like he solved the demarcation problem where he just transformed it into another one that has no answer. Now I have a question to you. Do you think Popper has explanatory power to distinguish between different kinds of "false" theses. Newtonian physics according to him is false in the Popperian sense however we also know that people who reject gravity are false in the Popperian sense. Are they really the same because they were both "falsified"?
