The Paradox of Karl Popper • Hacker News Board

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#31

Post by lisper » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #29

yters wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just pushing the problem up a level. Adding an explanation is proposing a model for the coin's behavior. Regardless of the model proposed, and whether it is confirmed or refuted, if the coin is fair you learn nothing. On the other hand, if the coin is not fair, Solomonoff induction works.

> That's just pushing the problem up a level. No. That's inverting the order of the interaction. On the first case you are observing a phenomenon, and using it to construct a model; on the second case you are constructing a model, and then using your observation to check it. Induction is a great way to create useful models, but only failures on falsification can give you confidence that the model actually works.

> Induction is a great way to create useful models

No, it isn't. Induction is a great way to create WRONG models. In fact, all of the interesting and useful stuff happens exactly where induction gets it wrong.

Example: the sun has risen on earth every day for the last 10^11 days or so. But we know that in another 10^11 days the sun will stop rising (because it will become a red giant and engulf the earth). We know this despite the fact that we have never actually observed this happen even once.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#32

Post by frabert » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 5:40 PM UTC

13415 wrote: post #16

As far as I remember, that was the worst article about a philosopher that I've ever read. The author is resentful and pretentious from the start to the end and tries his best to portray Popper as a kind of silly person. If you haven't read the article yet, my advice is not to read it.

I absolutely don't agree and have not found the author trying to shed that light on Popper. Quite the opposite in fact, I felt it was just the description of a rightly self-confident and exuberant philosopher.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#33

Post by pvitz » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 5:51 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #7

Nassim Taleb, the author of Fooled by Randomness and the Black Swan, is a fan of Popper.

And so is also Popper's student George Soros.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#34

Post by ecocentrik » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

13415 wrote: post #16

As far as I remember, that was the worst article about a philosopher that I've ever read. The author is resentful and pretentious from the start to the end and tries his best to portray Popper as a kind of silly person. If you haven't read the article yet, my advice is not to read it.

> tries his best to portray Popper as a kind of silly person.

The author seems to have pulled the bulk of the article from 25 year old notes. He doesn't hide his own youthful naïveté at assuming that a taxi driver would know directions to the home of a philosopher. He also preserves what I'd imagine are embarrassing moments like Popper's reaction to his "big question". What you consider silly, might just be an issue of narrative style.

I personally think it captures the wit and home life of an energetic 90 year old philosopher. What well adjusted human being doesn't expect to have a slightly disorganization existence near the end of a very long life?

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#35

Post by coldtea » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:00 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #26

coldtea wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not supposed to workaround induction's problems.

Induction is the problem, so if falsification does not solve the problem it does not contribute anything.

Induction might be the problem for you (and well, certain philosophers of science, like Bertrand Russell), but it's not the problem with the scientific method -- which doesn't pretend to arrive at the "absolute" truth anyway.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#36

Post by jessriedel » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

ecocentrik wrote: post #34

13415 wrote: post #16

As far as I remember, that was the worst article about a philosopher that I've ever read. The author is resentful and pretentious from the start to the end and tries his best to portray Popper as a kind of silly person. If you haven't read the article yet, my advice is not to read it.

> tries his best to portray Popper as a kind of silly person. The author seems to have pulled the bulk of the article from 25 year old notes. He doesn't hide his own youthful naïveté at assuming that a taxi driver would know directions to the home of a philosopher. He also preserves what I'd imagine are embarrassing moments like Popper's reaction to his "big question". What you consider silly, might just be an issue…

> He doesn't hide his own youthful naïveté at assuming that a taxi driver would know directions to the home of a philosopher.

Huh? The author specifically asked for directions and was surprised when he was (unjustifiably) assured he wouldn't need them.

> I personally think it captures the wit and home life of an energetic 90 year old philosopher...

13415 isn't saying the author succeeds at making Popper look silly. Rather, the author is attempting and failing to do so.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#37

Post by escherplex » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

blueprint wrote: post #18

escherplex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the fun of it, try an embedded factoid: 'blueprint' is happy to have committed some atrocity X (without negating X)

Huh? Do you know what happy means

Nah, that's a corollary to Popper's observation of a problem with all 'definitions' in that terms are defined using terms which themselves remain undefined which points to an implicit universal subjectivity, which contemporary phenomenology inspired by Husserl attempts to skirt. The above was a counterargument used on a HS hacker classmate's contention that any and all questions could be formulated requiring only a yes/no true/false answer. Prefixing a malicious factoid with a requisite subjective judgment and requiring a categorical response illustrates an ill-formed [but possible] question incapable of being affirmed or negated by any respondent.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#38

Post by nonbel » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:09 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #10

trukterious wrote: post #3

Popper sounds like a dude. We shouldn't confuse this apparent irascibility with dogmatism. He was passionate about his ideas: he published them and read criticism of them. He changed his mind about the testability of evolution, and other things. Intellectual humility is not the same quality as personal meekness and geniuses have always had difficult personalities. Philosophers doubly so. How could it be otherwise? Ho…

> it's a philosophical one. It is potentially 'falsifiable' by criticism, however Agreed. I think the main issue is not with the idea itself of the scientific method, rather than the practical implications and its limitations . - The main idea is a qualitative one. It doesn't consider all the statistical can of worms about reproducibility. - Real world experiments rarely reproduce perfectly/exactly. The more the expe…

Scientists were reproducing each others work before statistics was a thing. Whatever "statistical can of worms" there is regarding it sounds like a problem with the statistics being used rather than science.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#39

Post by kashyapc » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

trukterious wrote: post #3

Popper sounds like a dude. We shouldn't confuse this apparent irascibility with dogmatism. He was passionate about his ideas: he published them and read criticism of them. He changed his mind about the testability of evolution, and other things. Intellectual humility is not the same quality as personal meekness and geniuses have always had difficult personalities. Philosophers doubly so. How could it be otherwise? Ho…

Speaking of David Deutsch, the fine man needs more visibility. To get a taste of his thoughts, might want to listen to the podcast[1], Surviving the Cosmos, between Deutsch and Sam Harris. (They did a second podcast together as well, but I somehow have a stronger memory of the first one.)

[1] https://samharris.org/podcasts/surviving-the-cosmos/

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#40

Post by blueprint » Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

escherplex wrote: post #37

blueprint wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? Do you know what happy means

Nah, that's a corollary to Popper's observation of a problem with all 'definitions' in that terms are defined using terms which themselves remain undefined which points to an implicit universal subjectivity, which contemporary phenomenology inspired by Husserl attempts to skirt. The above was a counterargument used on a HS hacker classmate's contention that any and all questions could be formulated requiring only a y…

As long as happiness and subjectivity are not well defined by the asker, answers to questions formulated using such definitions necessarily seem to them to be ill-defined...