so actually there is a flaw in the Popper classic formulation of
objective knowledge (and even if you extend it to take the community consensus
paridgm model of T. Kuhn, the same problem remains).
The model is that you cannot prove an hypothesis true - merely demonstrate its
use, but you can falsify it.
This means that "truth" is funfible, and based on a shifting sand of hypotheses,
formed by choosing the
i) best fit
ii) with least parameters
(lots of problems here - like why choose parameters and why isooate system from
other "allegedly" non-relevant influences
anyhow the flaw is this: a "proof" of falsity (i.e. falsification of an
hypothsis) is itself merely another piece of objective knowledge.
So while a theory about a truth in the Universe in Popper cannot be proved,
it can only be disproved, is the mantra - the act is that it cannot be disproved
either - all you can do is downrank it in a list of plausible models that have
some pragmatic value.
Hence science is merely the art of the pragmatic. It has no claim to absolute
truth, and even the relative truthes of models are subject to confidence limits
as tom toppard said, int hereal inspector hound,
frankly my dear, you strech my credulity and patience to breaking point.
as houlebque says