Popper's argument is that the growth of scientific knowledge progresses by means of formulating bold hypotheses, and trying to refute (disprove or falsify) them.
Popper believed that: "Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her.
"[1] He makes this point more specific in a 1953 lecture, where he argues that, if we aim to explain the world, then: "... there is no more rational procedure than the method of trial and error – of conjecture and refutation: of boldly proposing theories; of trying our best to show that these are erroneous; and of accepting them tentatively if our critical efforts are unsuccessful.
From the point of view here developed, all laws, all theories, remain essentially tentative, or conjectural, or hypothetical, even when we feel unable to doubt them any longer.
Some philosophers have argued that, in the real world, scientists operate routinely with at least some metaphysical beliefs for which they have no proof or verification whatsoever.
[7] Popper's idea of the role of bold hypotheses in scientific progress has attracted three main kinds of criticisms.
Despite these important criticisms, Popper's concept of bold hypotheses continues to be widely used in the academic world.
One reason is that, at some level, the concept does make sense, even if (arguably) Popper himself failed to define its role in scientific research very well.
So the idea of a bold hypothesis also continues to have a place in economics, management theory and business administration.