Popper always told us to open a paper with a problem: I have two problems. The first is whether in the years that have elapsed since 1943–1944, when "The Poverty of Historicism" was originally published, there have emerged new arguments to challenge what Popper said about the differences between the natural and the social sciences. To address this problem I have to face a second one: just what, in that work and his other comments on the topic, did Popper consider the main differences between the natural and social sciences to be? Both problems are enmeshed in a sociological problem, that of the strange reception of Popper's ideas in general,¹ and the extraordinary sidestepping of The Poverty of Historicism in particular.