I do have a great respect for Popper. I mean, I think... he's nearer to... I mean, Popper's ambition, in relation to science, at least, was to discriminate between, sort of, science and what he called pseudo-science. As a very young man, almost as a schoolboy, his problem was to discriminate between Einstein, on the one hand, and Marx and Freud on the other. As far as he was concerned, Marx and Freud were sort of pseudo-science and Einstein was real science, but the question is: What was the difference? And it was his notion of the concept of falsifiability... was the criteria which he ultimately used to distinguish with Marxism and Freudism on the one hand. And I think I already mentioned earlier, talking to you, that, you know, neither Marx nor Freud are easily refutable, because they have, sort of, built-in self defences. Relativity theory, on the other hand, is very easily refutable. If wrong, there are experiments you can do to refute it. So I think Popper was... was a genuine contributor to our understanding of what we're doing. But more generally, my impression is that... that people who take... scientists who take the philosophy of science seriously and allow their scientific research to be influenced by philosophical preconceptions, are far more likely to do themselves harm than good. I mean, the classic case, I guess, is Karl Pearson, who because of his developed positivist stance - which says you mustn't imagine hypotheses, you mustn't hypothesise anything that you can't, sort of, see and touch - screwed up genetics for 20 years and completely ruined himself, because he wouldn't postulate the existence of an entity that he couldn't pick up and weigh. It... but he did that on philosophical grounds. And... and I suppose another and much worse example, I give Lysenko enough credit to believe that he was influenced not only by careerism but also by philosophical conviction. Certainly the errors he made about heredity are precisely the ones that Marxism should lead him to make, and it's another case where philosophical preconceptions misled him. And I think it happens again and again in science. So, I'm... I'm a sucker here, I mean, I love reading philosophy of science, I find it interesting. I feel all ready to argue about it. But I do not believe one should allow oneself to be influenced by it, when actually thinking about science.