i thinkt the fact popper and his philosophical work remained in the state of positivist-though although he criticized it, is the number one reason for him beeing criticized by the Franfurter School Dudes.
You seem to be mistaken, as were they. (But you are in very good company.
Stephen Hawking is a recent high profile advocate of positivism, at least in the physical sciences. In The Universe in a Nutshell (p. 31) he writes:
Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others.
However, the claim that Popper was a positivist is a common misunderstanding that Popper himself termed the "Popper legend."
In fact, he developed his views in stark opposition to and as a criticism of positivism and held that scientific theories talk about how the world really is, not, as positivists claim, about phenomena or observations experienced by scientists.
In the same vein, continental philosophers like Theodore Adorno and Jürgen Habermas regarded Popper as a positivist because of his alleged devotion to a unified science.
However, this was also part of the "Popper legend"; Popper had in fact been the foremost critic of this doctrine of the Vienna Circle, critiquing it, for instance, in his "Conjectures and Refutations"
so, to be exact, in a postmodern tradition of discourse, in which we remain nowadays, you are indeed right and wrong. and so am i.
I could still be wrong, but we shouldn't both be right
, and yet disagree.