Karl Popper

[Anonymous No.15391433]

What does /lit/ think of him? Is he worth reading? Is he the ultimate midwit?

[Anonymous No.15392430]

that's a pass for me

[Anonymous No.15392897]

>>15391433

commie piece of shit

[Anonymous No.15392914]

No. Falsificationism is retarded

[Anonymous No.15392924]

i remember the black swan thing from HS but that's about it lmoa

[Anonymous No.15392931]

You should read him if only because of the immense influence he had on modern scientific methodology.

[Anonymous No.15392966]

>>15392931
Hardly any philosophers of science are falsificationists anymore

[Anonymous No.15392989]

Peirce minus about three standard deviations in intelligence, curiosity and imagination.

[Anonymous No.15392990]

Midwit personified

[Anonymous No.15393001]

>>15392966
You'll find that falsificationism's most hardened supporters are scientists who haven't read him (or any other philosopher of science for that matter)

[Anonymous No.15393014]

>>15392897
Huh? Don't marxists seethe at him

[Anonymous No.15393031]

Falsificationism is one of the most objected-to claims in 20th century philosophy, and for good reason. But, it is important for understanding 20th century philosophy of science.

He also made several technical contributions to foundations of probability theory but probably too niche.

Dont know about his political stuff at all.

Bottom line: probably not worth reading

[Anonymous No.15393049]

>>15392966
But scientists are.

[Anonymous No.15393061]

>>15392966
Physics (in Germany) here, Kuhn and Popper are obligatory reading in our program

[Anonymous No.15393093]

Marxists hate him because he proved Marxism isn't scientific.

[Anonymous No.15393132]

>>15391433
>Is he the ultimate midwit?
Nothing half so impressive. There is zero reason to read Popper, pic related.

[Anonymous No.15393141]

>>15393061
I mean he and Kuhn basically founded philosophy of science so that's understandable but I imagine it won't be for anything but Historical reasons

[Anonymous No.15393158]

>>15393132
Jesus, you can see the envy exhuding from that letter.

[Anonymous No.15393164]

>>15393132
I love reading this kind of shit, what a trouncing.

[Anonymous No.15393230]

>>15393132
>he use words wrong!
>he not understand, m-muh context
>respect muh ancient philosodaddies of eternal wisdom!
pure butthurt, typical /lit/fag pseud.

[Anonymous No.15393442]

>>15393158
>>15393230
Typical pseudo intellectual reaction when close pressed by questions of real rigor. Popper is a pseud's pseud.

[Anonymous No.15393515]

>>15392897
>one of the founders of neoliberal thought

nah, not a leftist. Ipso facto a midwit, because of the whole neoliberalism thing being a boomer meme thing.

[Anonymous No.15393535]

>>15393049
I say this as a scientist, most of the scientists havnt a clue about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15393543]

>>15393442
What rigour? That letter has anything but rigour. You sure that's the text you meant to post?

[Anonymous No.15393571]

>>15393132
>>15393230
Lmao if you knew popper at all you’d know how sweet and ironic it is to see someone else rip him like this. Great post >>15393132

[Anonymous No.15393575]

>>15393543
Idiot, flail away.

[Anonymous No.15393595]

>>15393049
Many scientists would probably tell you that science works BOTH by induction AND falsification if you asked them. In practice scientist just use the theories that seem 'most probable'.

[Anonymous No.15393599]

>>15393132
>Voegelin is known for often inventing terms or using old ones in new ways.
What a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.15393609]

>>15393575
At the end of the day, Voegelin is a nobody that wrote an angry incoherent letter. Popper is one of the few philosophers actually revered by scientists worldwide.

[Anonymous No.15393628]

>>15391433
philosophy of science is pointless

[Anonymous No.15393634]

>>15391433
Wish more people read his All Life is Problem Solving and Logic of Scientific Discovery.

[Anonymous No.15393662]

>>15393595
I.e. scientists don't really need to read philosophy of science to do their job. Bayesian reasoning is probably the best model/justification for how science works/should work

[Anonymous No.15393690]

>>15393609
>appeal to authority
Because what's popular is an indicator of quality, right? It's a fallacy if we accept your premises, but guess what, no-one sane grants even that. Popper isn't revered, Voegelin is well known (maybe not by pseuds like yourself), and most scientists are idiots. Have a good day, you fucking retard. Lmao, the best part is your own 'argumentation' so manifestly demonstrates your total lack, defend away your imagined stake, your flailing is gratifying in its own way.

[Anonymous No.15393702]

>>15393690
Scientists aren't the population at large. At least find the right fallacy next time you try to make an argument.

[Anonymous No.15393712]

>>15393690
>most scientists are idiots
t. seething pseud that failed math in high school and thinks reading Hegel nonsense makes him smart

[Anonymous No.15393720]

>>15393702
You're confusing appeal to authority with appeal to majority dumbass.

[Anonymous No.15393726]

im about a few chapters into the Open Society and Its Enemies, shit is pretty cash.

[Anonymous No.15393737]

>>15393720
>Because what's popular is an indicator of quality, right? It's a fallacy if we accept your premises
I am only referring to this part. (Yes, what's revered among scientists is very likely an indicator of quality when it comes to science itself.)

[Anonymous No.15393747]

>2 Popper threads up
>>>15391247
What bizzaro lit is this where people give a shit about this idiot? He's the equivalent of Russel in misunderstanding philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15393755]

>>15393720
>resort to pedantry in lieu of argument
>still fuck up anyway
lmao the absolute state of popperfags

[Anonymous No.15393759]

>>15393747
It's pol bait I think. Someone posted this comic a few weeks back and it's been like this since.

[Anonymous No.15393776]

>>15393726
also i unironically started reading it to get a better handle on george soros and desu I find myself agreeing with karl a lot, and ergo the OSF

[Anonymous No.15393778]

>>15393755
I didn't bother reading his greentext, assuming he was quoting me. It's also not an appeal to authority because that's only a fallacy when you appeal to authority on a matter that doesn't concern the authority. Appealing to scientists when it comes to science isn't a fallacy.

[Anonymous No.15393800]

>>15393759
Based Popper destroying both Marxists and Nazis. No wonder he gets so much hate on 4chan which is nothing but a bunch of virgin basement dwellers clinging to extremist ideologies.

[Anonymous No.15393853]

>>15393014
Yeah, he critiqued Marx and that makes for seethe.

[Anonymous No.15393859]

>>15393759
>anyone who preaches tolerance should be persecuted
>except me though
lol

[Anonymous No.15393898]

>>15393628
Wrong

[Anonymous No.15393931]

>>15393898
wrong

[Anonymous No.15394246]

>>15393800
Based Popper indeed, he refutes himself.

[Anonymous No.15395266]

>>15393853
You see it in all the seething posts on this thread, grinding their teeth in Popper's direction.

Falsificationism confirmed!

[Anonymous No.15395592]

>>15391433
Not worth reading at all. Any "philosopher" who defends the neoliberal democratic status quo are doing apologetics and can't be called philosophers.