Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were friends of science because they shared some values—the value of science for humanity, especially. My thesis is that their different accounts of science could not save it from its belittlers. They failed in their defense of science unknowingly, because of what they did not do. They did not defend an Enlightenment opinion that happens to be true—namely, that a new theory of induction of the seventeenth century can be applied successfully to gain knowledge. They opposed the opinion that the “experimental philosophy” of the Royal Society in London can sometimes produce affirmative knowledge of fundamental principles, even if that sort of event is rare and hard to pull off.

卡尔·波普尔（Karl Popper）和托马斯·库恩（Thomas Kuhn）是科学之友，因为他们分享了一些价值，尤其是科学对人类的价值。我的论点是，他们对科学的不同解释无法挽救它的贬低者。由于他们没有做的事情，他们在不知不觉中未能捍卫科学。他们没有捍卫恰巧是正确的启蒙运动观点，即可以成功地应用十七世纪的新归纳理论来获取知识。他们反对这样的观点，即伦敦皇家学会的“实验哲学”有时可以产生基本原理的肯定知识，即使这种事件很少发生并且很难实现。