ABSTRACT
As might have been predicted, the reaction in the philosophical world to the original edition of this book, Popper and After: Four Modern Irrationalisis, Pergamon Press, 1982, was polarised. An enraged reviewer for New Scientist, 19 January 1984, contacted Karl Popper to ask whether he believed in the advance of scientific knowledge. A number of other reviewers expressed distaste for the polemics, but conceded that David Stove had identified deductivism as a major difficulty for Popper and the others. Typical was the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, which found it 'impossible to recommend this unfortunate book', but agreed that Popper had found no way of reconciling deductivism with the advance of science. Views of the nature of science similar to S. Yates Stove's have remained rare in the philosophy of science. Closer to Stove's point of view, though more involved in technical questions, is the school of 'objective Bayesians', led until his death in 1998 by E. T. Jaynes.
