A nice way of visualizing Popper‘s thoughts on what constitutes “true science”:
Instead of conferring patents of epistemic nobility, lawdoms and theoryhoods, on certain hypotheses, Popper hauled them all before an Anglo-Austrian Tribunal of Revolutionary Empirical Justice. The procedure of the court was as follows: the accused was blindfolded, and the magistrates then formed a firing squad, shooting at it with every piece of possibly-refuting observational evidence they could find.
Conjectures who refused to present themselves might lead harmless lives as metaphysics without scientific aspirations; conjectures detected peaking out from under the blindfold, so as to dodge the Tribunal’s attempts at refutation, were declaredand exiled from the Open Society of Science.
Our best scientific theories, those Stakhanovites of knowledge, consisted of those conjectures which had survived harsh and repeated sessions before the Tribunal, demonstrated their loyalty to the Open Society by appearing before it again and again and offering the largest target to refutation that they could, and so retained their place in the revolutionary vanguard until they succumbed, or were displaced by another conjecture with even greater zeal for the Great Purge…
Note that the article as a whole, a book review by the aforementiond Cosma Shalizi of Deborah Mayo’s Error and the Growth of Experimental Knowledge, claims in part that Popper’s approach falls down in several ways. Hence the entire review (and, presumably, Mayo’s book too) should be interesting to scientists and philosophers of science in general.