Bunge contra Popper

  • Joseph AgassiEmail author
  • Nimrod Bar-Am


Most of our colleagues are either dogmatists or justificationists. This makes friendship with them a delicate matter: one constantly faces the dilemma of either doing them the (closed society) curtesy of overlooking their faults, or offering them the (open society) service of readiness to criticize their opinions. Bunge is one of the few who make both friendship and criticism easy: he avoids both dogmas and justifications.


  1. Agassi, J. (1990). Ontology and its discontent. In Weingartner & Dorn (1990) (pp. 105–122).Google Scholar
  2. Agassi, J. (1996). Towards honest public relations of science. In S. Amsterdamski (Ed.), The significance of Popper’s thought, Poznań studies in the philosophy of the sciences and the humanities (Vol. 49, pp. 39–57). Reprinted in Agassi, J. (2003), pp. 152–163.Google Scholar
  3. Agassi, J. (2003). Science and culture. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agassi, J. (2012). The very idea of modern science. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Amsterdamski, S. (1996). The significance of Popper’s thought: Proceedings of the ‘Karl popper 1902–1994. Conference, Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities (p. 49).Google Scholar
  6. Bochenski, J. (1990). On the system. In Weingartner & Dorn (1990) (pp. 99–104).Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Am, N., & Gattei S. (Eds.). (2017). Encouraging openness: Essays for Joseph Agassi on the occasion of his 90th birthday (Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Bunge, M. (1961a). The weight of simplicity in the construction and assaying of scientific theories. Philosophy of Science, 28, 120–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunge, M. (1961b). Kinds and criteria of scientific laws. Philosophy of Science, 28, 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (1963). The myth of simplicity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research II: The search for truth. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  13. Bunge, M. (2009). Political philosophy: Fact, fiction and vision. New Brunswick: Transaction Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Bunge, M. (2011). 100 ideas. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina.Google Scholar
  15. Bunge, M. (2017). Why don’t scientists respect philosophers? In Br-Am & Gattei (2017) (pp. 3–12).Google Scholar
  16. Hume, D. (1742). Essays, moral, political, and literary. Strand/Edinburgh: A. Millar and A. Kincaid & A. Donaldson.Google Scholar
  17. Lejewski, C. (1954–1955). Logic and existence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 5, 104–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Poincaré, H. (1905). Science and hypothesis. New York: The Walter Scott Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  19. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Weingartner, P., & Dorn, G. (1990). Studies in Bunge’s treatise. Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  21. Wittgenstein, L. (2001/1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.York UniversityTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Sapir Academic College of The NegevSderotIsrael

Personalised recommendations