Critiques of Popper's Falsification Criterion?

Question

Does anyone know of any published critiques of Popper's Falsification Criterion?

Answer 1

The most famous and concise critique of Popper's falsification theory of truth is offered by Swinburne, the theologian. He offers us the following hypothetical situation to underine the absurdity of the falsification theory. Suppose the toys in a cupboard came to life each night, but fell down again lifeless when they were observed. How could such an event be falsified? And why would the inability to falsify it make it untrue?
The best critique of (or perhaps alternative to) Popper's falsification theory as it concerns scientific progress is offered by Thomas Khun in his work 'The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions'. He argues that falsification is a relitively modern scientific criterion, and points out that enlightenment physics never tried to falsify its theories, relying, as it did, on mathematical proofs for its legitimacy.
The last point to make is that the falsification theory of truth excludes itself from the realm of knowlege. How do we falsify the idea that only falsifyable theories are worthwhile? We cannot and therefore the theory is useless by its own criterion.
In summation, the falsification theory of truth is a culturally determined and contingent idea, and has no fundemental validity, despite its usefulness within current scientific paradigms.

Answer 2

Yeah.
Bible.
Not a very good critique but it tries to make the opposite point.

Answer 3

I have some links you could follow. They might not be the end of your quest - but they can serve as your beginning.

Answer 4

The following are useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/falsifiabil...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/demarcation...
http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/fals...
http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popp...