Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Paradox of Karl Popper

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 81 posts

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#61

Post by lisper »

yters wrote: post #59
lisper wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Falsification is necessary but not sufficient. The best theory is one that has two properties: 1) it is consistent with all the observed data (i.e. has not been falsified) and 2) it is a "good explanation". Explaining what is meant by "good explanation" is too long for an HN comment, but roughly speaking it means that it is concise and brittle -- any modification would cause it to become inconsistent with the dat…

That sounds like Solmonoff induction. But, there is still the same problem. Why are concise explanations better? Solomnoff justified this assumption by claiming we are generated by a computable prior. But, that again pushes the question back to why we can assume this. Otherwise, no observation justifies a computable prior over random luck.

> Why are concise explanations better?

Because they require less effort to work with. Note that concise is only better all else being equal. Being consistent with the observed data is necessary, but not sufficient. We can only ever have a finite amount of data, and any finite dataset is consistent with an infinite number of theories. Conciseness is just a heuristic we use to select among the infinite possibilities. It just turns out that in the universe we live in, concise theories consistent with the data have a lot of predictive power. No one know why our universe is this way. That's just how it turns out to be.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#62

Post by mactintyre »

bo1024 wrote: post #50

This was a fun read, but I found the premise of the "paradox" frustrating. I get that it's kind of funny how the falsfiability guy is passionate and dogmatic about his views. But taking it seriously that this is a contradiction and asking "is falsification falsifiable" is a basic misunderstanding. It reminds me of popular misinterpretations of Godel's theorem. The author seemed to not understand Popper's response, wh…

Nice response; love the 4th commandment point. I found the author to be on the attack, from the beginning, with the whole taxi driver / address thing. Who cares? Plus the first driver even knew the street.

Then the author seems pathetic here: "Peering searchingly into my eyes, he asked if one of his critics had persuaded me to pose the question. Yes, I lied." Why lie? Have some guts, like Popper evidently does, and believe in what you want to ask.

Popper at this time was 90 years old, surely not putting his best foot forward. It was a poor essay overall, IMO, but I love to read anything about Popper.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#63

Post by soldeace »

stareatgoats wrote: post #56
phyller wrote: post #28

Ha, I didn't know about him before. Sounds really interesting. Reminds me a lot of Socrates. I have recently been reading the classics about Socrates and was surprised to realize that a) his main mission seemed to be to show people they didn't know as much as they thought b) he was basically a huge troll, even if he was usually correct c) he was such a huge troll that the Athenians actually put him to death for it vi…

Popper is immensely influential in science, well worth a closer study. Agree there are some similarities with Socrates but as far as I know there was no drive to have Popper drink poison (a tribute to the imprint of that ancient Athenian on modern society maybe). Except perhaps in communist countries, the expressed antithesis of Popper's "open society".

> Except perhaps in communist countries, the expressed antithesis of Popper's "open society".

I see your point, and I agree, but lest we address the wrong concept, the term you're looking for is 'dictatorial'. Capitalism, just like Communism, produced bloody repressive regimes that were no ground to 'open societies' (e.g. almost every South American country from the 60's to 80's). History teaches us that we should keep our eyes open, for living in capitalist and oh-so-free countries today is simply no guarantee of 'open societies' tomorrow.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#64

Post by jazzkingrt »

kashyapc wrote: post #39
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/

This is amazing thank you.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#65

Post by yters »

lisper wrote: post #61
yters wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like Solmonoff induction. But, there is still the same problem. Why are concise explanations better? Solomnoff justified this assumption by claiming we are generated by a computable prior. But, that again pushes the question back to why we can assume this. Otherwise, no observation justifies a computable prior over random luck.

> Why are concise explanations better? Because they require less effort to work with. Note that concise is only better all else being equal. Being consistent with the observed data is necessary, but not sufficient. We can only ever have a finite amount of data, and any finite dataset is consistent with an infinite number of theories. Conciseness is just a heuristic we use to select among the infinite possibilities. I…

"It just turns out that in the universe we live in, concise theories consistent with the data have a lot of predictive power. No one know why our universe is this way. That's just how it turns out to be."

How is this not inductivism?

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#66

Post by jhbadger »

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…

What would be a case of actual knowledge that isn't scientific and not amenable to falsification though? Even humanities like history use evidence and make conclusions that can be falsified in the light of new information.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#67

Post by lisper »

yters wrote: post #65
lisper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why are concise explanations better? Because they require less effort to work with. Note that concise is only better all else being equal. Being consistent with the observed data is necessary, but not sufficient. We can only ever have a finite amount of data, and any finite dataset is consistent with an infinite number of theories. Conciseness is just a heuristic we use to select among the infinite possibilities. I…

"It just turns out that in the universe we live in, concise theories consistent with the data have a lot of predictive power. No one know why our universe is this way. That's just how it turns out to be." How is this not inductivism?

What do you think inductivism is?

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#68

Post by 8bitsrule »

Funny, funny stuff!

Popper glared at me. Then his expression softened, and he placed his hand on mine. “I don't want to hurt you,” he said gently, “but it is a silly question."

Very sly form of argument, that.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#69

Post by raverbashing »

jhbadger wrote: post #66
raverbashing wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

What would be a case of actual knowledge that isn't scientific and not amenable to falsification though? Even humanities like history use evidence and make conclusions that can be falsified in the light of new information.

Anything that is limited in observability. Either because the available sample size is too small, the time or ability to observe something is limited.

A bit of a stretch, but I'm also skeptical of the ability of the scientific method to be able to understand/prove anything with (hidden) state/memory.

For a lot of 'skeptics' unproven means wrong and unmeasurable means wrong.

Re: The Paradox of Karl Popper

#70

Post by chicob »

This whole interview sounds a lot like someone finally getting the courage to get even with an elderly man by exposing some petty aspects of his homely habits while only superficially mentioning his work.

It seems the most detailed and thorough paragraph is the one devoted to the spelling of 'Popperazzi'.

Post reply on HN