Innocent wrote:In the modern technological and highly-specialised world scientists are rarely aware of the work of philosophers; it is virtually unprecedented to find them queuing up, as they have done in Popper's case, to testify to the enormously practical beneficial impact which that philosophical work has had upon their own.
I fail to see what this enormous practical impact should have been. Maybe some individuals changed their outlook on what they were doing, but what exactly are scientists doing differently now than they were doing it before Popper? Because this, I think, is the question relevant to deciding that point.
Also, it is, in my experienced, an acknowledged fact that a philosopher of science should not always trust and take completely seriously scientists own outlook what they're doing. Just ask physicists about whether they think that "electrons really exist" and compare that with the philosophical debate on the issue.
what scientific truth is
The whole SEP article never mentions the term "scientific truth". The only book by Popper I've ever read is Conjectures and Refutations, and it's been a while since then, but I can't remember any definition of (any kind of) truth there, either. I don't think it's necessary anyway, but since you brought up the issue of different kinds of truth, I'd like you to explain them.
why Popper's philosophy is highly relevant to modern science
Why exactly? As I said, I'm not aware scientists don't behave like a century ago. And on a theoretical level, what are the interesting questions about science that Popper's theory offers an answer to? Something that is interesting is this idea of progress towards truth - but as far as I know, the problem of making that work logically wasn't solved in his lifetime. Is there some agreement about this issue now? I don't know how those subsequent attempts by logicians were received, and I don't feel like reading the SEP article about truthlikeness in the middle of the night. Given what you are saying here, you should probably know, so it's easier to just ask.
And then there is this induction and theory choice stuff, which also seem to be not extremely relevant to science as it is actually going on, because people don't very often come up with theories out of the blue. This is not to say it's false, though.
Killroy wrote:whereas philosophy in its most popular modern form is simply the process of elevating theories to dogma.
Do you by any chance live in Europe?