David Deutsch is the best Popperian after Popper. Here’s one reason why.
-
-
"One of the main tasks for human reason is to make the universe we live in understandable to ourselves. This is the task of science. There are two different components of about equal importance in this enterprise. The first is poetic inventiveness ..."
– Karl Popper
books
(non-commercial links)
Yes, Popper’s obsession with testing got him into trouble with the “justification of basic statements” and that kind of thing because the positivists had to find empirical/observational/sensational foundations someplace and Popper the “falsificationist” seemed to be with them on the overwhelming importance of observations. Similarly with his theory of corroboration. What about posting your crit of that aspect of Popperism?
I did post criticism here of Popper, a while back, and I was unable to get anyone to discuss it seriously. I don’t think this place has changed.
This blog only started in January. I’ve been working on a long post regarding what Popper regarded as valid and invalid inferences and the importance of this to critical rationalism. Also, I’ve been trying to study Popper’s teaching methods, but have gotten bogged down in Joseph Agassi’s _A Philosopher’s Apprentice_, the book is challenging me in a lot of unexpected ways, a pleasure to be sure. These projects are moving in slow motion mostly because I have so much else I have to do.
I genuinely believe there are certain points that need to be raised that respond to what you have been arguing. Note, in the above, you dismiss the element of time.
This all comes back to Popper’s ideas about three worlds. Posting criticism anywhere on the Internet (at your own blog for instance) invites criticism from those who are interested in the same problems you are. People working on these problems are probably searching for potential solutions even as you read this …
I wasn’t referring to the stuff about deduction above, FYI.
“I did post criticism here of Popper, a while back, and I was unable to get anyone to discuss it seriously.”
Could you be more specific?
FYI, I’m genuinely interested in the issue of validity. And I see it as an important issue. That’s why I’m reviewing it.
ok, the validity thing is a good issue, but i meant the critical preferences stuff:
http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2010/02/28/critical-preferences/
http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2010/03/04/critical-preferences-and-strong-arguments/