Carl Popper. Know of him?

reply to post by Nohup


The emmensely maligned "AEther".
(not saying I believe in just an example so anyone inclined to rant at me please take this line into account)

And the emmensely loved at current "Dark Matter".

Seems to me their both pretty much the same dang thing (meaning not exactly).

Or the ghostly neutrinos.
(how they say it was confirmed left me not so sure)

Or how we don't even completely understand gravity though quite a few will get EXTREMELY incised if you even utter such a thing.

Particularly in the case of Dark Matter it seems to me to be little more than attempting to patch holes in sinking theory. And a complete waste of time to boot. Rather than admit they don't really have a clue and the model of the big bang start to a universe is flawed.
(I don't subscribe to creationism so don't even try to say I do.)

And:

The method itself will help weed out prejudices.

If you mean peer review I see too much politics.
Such is human nature of course we love our politicisizing.

Nor do I see Scientific Method having much use with things we can't see and only really partially detect.
As is the case with alot of the grounds of science we are currently "at".

Go ahead and call me stupid/ignorant/whatever now. *sarcasm*


[edit on 22-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Nohup

Yes, that was his theory about how scientists proceed: by forming, testing, discarding and refining hypotheses. He didn't care for it too much. The inevitable result of such a process would be a world-picture made out of human referents, distorted by the limited range of our senses and the schematic bounds of our mentation. No objectively accurate -- whatever that means -- representation of the real world could ever be possible.

But it seems to me that a lot hangs on the phrase, 'whatever that means'. In his book The Stuff of Thought, Steven Pinker suggests that 'objective reality', as far as the human species is concerned, cannot be anything but thoroughly mediated -- the media in question being our built-in sensory and connective apparatus -- and packaged in ways our brains can recognize. I agree with this; the ultimate ground of reality is clearly something that can be perceived and understood by human beings only in gross analogical terms. We cannot apprehend reality except in the way our bodies and minds have evolved to understand it. That is why our imagination fails us when we try to imagine relativistic or quantum effects, or turn the spotlight of consciousness inward upon itself, or even think a little too hard about everyday phenomena like time.

None of this devalues science, which in many areas has now reached well beyond the range of our sense-modulated worldview into realms of ever-more-airy abstraction. Popper, I think, was worried that these abstractions were too much from that worldview -- distorted by our instinctive sensory and mental biases. He was almost certainly right in this-- heaven knows there aren't enough stars in the sky to count the times they have led us astray already -- but wrong, I think, in believing that this would preclude ultimate understanding. At any rate, we may take comfort in knowing that this is a judgement on which final word cannot be delivered until the stars themselves flicker out -- or we do.

I think Popper was slightly appalled at the thought that science, like art, was ultimately a creative endeavour. The laws of physics and the phenomena they give rise to are independent objects, but scientific theories are artefacts of the mind -- they don't exist until someone invents them. To Popper, that seemed to strike at the heart of the scientific method. I think he was wrong to be so worried; human beings are, after all, very much a part of the phenomenal world, and any human take on reality -- whether it's a child's anticipation of a puppy-dog's needs or the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox -- is fully valid. Whether a particular take is to be trusted or not is another question, and Popper's great contribution to civilization was in helping us answer it.

reply to post by Astyanax

You had me up until here.

but wrong, I think, in believing that this would preclude ultimate understanding.

I find it rather confusing how we could ever declare "ultimate understanding" considering the reasons you stated before this line.
With the "truth" obscured by our inability to fathom it.

Especially in light of this line:

We cannot apprehend reality except in the way our bodies and minds have evolved to understand it. That is why our imagination fails us when we try to imagine relativistic or quantum effects, or turn the spotlight of consciousness inward upon itself, or even think a little too hard about everyday phenomena like time.

And:

which in many areas has now reached well beyond the range of our sense-modulated worldview into realms of ever-more-airy abstraction. Popper, I think, was worried that these abstractions were too much from that worldview -- distorted by our instinctive sensory and mental biases.

But what do I know. I am apparently just the guy trying to justify, what was it you said "Sand Castles" and "Invisible Pink Unicorns"? Or is it just that I didn't package my questions in a way you liked and since I am a spiritualist I must be trying to justify "Invisible Pink Unicorns" and whatever else rubbish you chose to accuse me of?

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Thank you for taking the trouble to read my post. Yes, I can see how you might find it confusing to learn that someone can accept that there are limitations on the ways in which we can know, without necessarily accepting that there are limits to knowledge itself. It is a big question; in fact, it is a question with a big name: epistemology.

I'm sorry, but at this point in our discussion I don't think it makes sense for me to try to enlighten you. Please do not get offended all over again; it's just that you don't -- I base my judgement on your posts in this thread and others on ATS -- yet have the necessary foundations of knowledge that will allow us to discuss this in a meaningful way. That need not be a permanent condition; and if you would like to rectify it, I recommend Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy (nice avatar, by the way, Nohup) as the best place to start; it was for me, as it has been for hundreds of thousands of others. Online resources are nowhere near as good, but I often find myself consulting the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Philosophy Pages. The former, however, demands at least some prior technical knowledge of the reader.

Good luck. I envy you the pleasure of discovering all this stuff for the first time. I still remember how intense it was for me. Luckily, there's always something more to learn, in philosophy just as in daily life.

reply to post by Astyanax


Mighty high horse you have there friend but anyrate.
You can continue your holy than thou act all you wish still doesn't explain jack.
Especially all attacks, arrogance, false assumptions that are refused to be put aside you have simply said what I have been trying to say with more words and a differing of opinion.

My stance is quite simply this and perhaps if you take a few minute break from looking down your nose at me you'd see it.

How can any one of (collectively or otherwise) come to a stance with ANY certainity that we have achieved or even come anywhere near "ultimate knowledge" with any certainity?
Especially when alot of what I hear is opinion passed off as fact.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
How can any one of (collectively or otherwise) come to a stance with ANY certainity that we have achieved or even come anywhere near "ultimate knowledge" with any certainity?

That is a question for someone like the Pope, or Deepak Chopra.

So then, what was it about Karl Popper that you wanted to discuss?

reply to post by Astyanax


Nice attempt at a dodge.
Not quite though.

You said this.

but wrong, I think, in believing that this would preclude ultimate understanding.

To which I responded. And asked "How come?", albeit in slightly more words.

And.............

That is a question for someone like the Pope, or Deepak Chopra.

I asked you.
You claim to be well versed, give it your best shot. And have obviously come to a opinion. I am simply asking for what you base it on.

And it should be noted that asking any religious leader (or anyone considered a leader) what they may think about such a question would just be begging for a conversion speech.
Something I strenously avoid.
Particularly from someone like the Pope.





[edit on 22-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'preclude'?

At any rate, you are asking me to justify a statement I did not make.

reply to post by Astyanax

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'preclude'?

This is what I thought it meant:

Preclude
–verb (used with object), -clud·ed, -clud·ing. 1. to prevent the presence, existence, or occurrence of; make impossible: The insufficiency of the evidence precludes a conviction.
2. to exclude or debar from something: His physical disability precludes an athletic career for him.

preclude
verb
1. keep from happening or arising; make impossible; "My sense of tact forbids an honest answer"; "Your role in the projects precludes your involvement in the competitive project" [syn: prevent]
2. make impossible, especially beforehand

Source:Preclude @ Dictionary.com

And the other thing.

At any rate, you are asking me to justify a statement I did not make.

So you claim you never said (or typed) this?

He was almost certainly right in this-- heaven knows there aren't enough stars in the sky to count the times they have led us astray already -- but wrong, I think, in believing that this would preclude ultimate understanding.

Heres the post for you if you need to be reminded what you said at length: post by Astyanax

Which is what I have been getting at btw.
I have joined him in believeing that our limitations preclude ultimate understanding. And was asking for what leads you to believe otherwise.

Not what you (and others apparently from the stars I see above your posts) have accused me of in the past, it should be noted.
I don't play the politics game, I am simply seeking impressions and reasons for those impressions and maybe share some of my own. NOT attack and defense of whatever like you have shown yourself to be doing. I don't want to join any club and won't be brow beat into joining yours, I also wish to add.

Thus my questions on thoughts about the person in question and was soo haughtily attacked for.

So.
Anything else or just admit your not going to answer the question?



[edit on 23-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

I see you have read my preceding posts very carefully but failed to understand them; nor have you understood what was said earlier by Blue Bird and Nohup. You will forgive me if I forbear to repeat myself; it's tiresome. Perhaps you should ask some helpful person to read the thread and explain it to you. Have a pleasant day.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


LoL!!!!!!
How'd I know you would take that tact if you posted again?

But it's ok do whatever you can to save your ego and avoid answering the question.

Especially after I chopped all your excuses and attempted dodges into shreds.
Lets look at the sequence shall we?
1)

That is a question for someone like the Pope, or Deepak Chopra.

So then, what was it about Karl Popper that you wanted to discuss?

Obvious attempt to throw the fact I am a spiritualist of unknown stripe to you back at me. Which failed.
Followed by a rather shoddy attempt at a dodge.

2)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word 'preclude'?

At any rate, you are asking me to justify a statement I did not make.

Then, you try to insult my intelligence again.
Followed by a blatant lie.

3)

I see you have read my preceding posts very carefully but failed to understand them; nor have you understood what was said earlier by Blue Bird and Nohup. You will forgive me if I forbear to repeat myself; it's tiresome. Perhaps you should ask some helpful person to read the thread and explain it to you. Have a pleasant day.

And the most recent and cremdelacrem of hilarity.
Pretend like I did not understand what OTHERS have said and by the way you have already answered the question that you repeatedly attempted to dodge none the less across some 3 posts now, but I am just too stupid to comprehend it.
Funny you should fall back on the implied "your just stupid" line again too.
And then say your walking away cause I am too stupid. Hey I understand you have an ego to feed. I forgive you.
By the way, NoHup is wrong and starting from a biased position is not excusable for the simple fact bias will taint how you interpret and relay that data if you relay that data at all. Simple psychology. But yes, you must start somewhere.

But I shall make an attempt to answer for you based on your attempts to avoid and bury it coupled with what I have seen from your demeanor.
You have no truly good excuse for your optimistic faith in humanity.
Not one that would stand to scrutiny at least by your OWN RULES.


Thank you for confirming a few things for me and good day to you as well sir.




[edit on 23-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 23-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Wraoth,

Have you checked out the work at Samizdata? If you like Karl Popper and his philosophy, you'll enjoy this site and the minds that work there.

mtrnc

reply to post by metatronic


Checking it out now.
Looks interesting.
Thank you for directing me to it.



Not sure I agree with the Ayn Rand lovingness they say they have.

[edit on 27-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

And for those of you that state I don't know of whom I speak. Here's some quotes for you. Ahem NoHup and that other guy. It's a potluck of his political and philosophical quotes but I like em.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them
-- Karl Popper

No matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
-- Karl Popper

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper

All things living are in search of a better world.
-- Karl Popper

The belief in a political Utopia is especially dangerous. This is possibly connected with the fact that the search for a better world, like the investigation of our environment, is (if I am correct) one of the oldest and most important of all the instincts.
-- Karl Popper

Before we as individuals are even conscious of our existence we have been profoundly influenced for a considerable time (since before birth) by our relationship to other individuals who have complicated histories, and are members of a society which has an infinitely more complicated and longer history than they do (and are members of it at a particular time and place in that history); and by the time we are able to make conscious choices we are already making use of categories in a language which has reached a particular degree of development through the lives of countless generations of human beings before us. . . . We are social creatures to the inmost centre of our being. The notion that one can begin anything at all from scratch, free from the past, or unindebted to others, could not conceivably be more wrong.
-- Karl Popper

If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.
-- Karl Popper

When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others - not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.
-- Karl Popper

Do not allow your dreams of a beautiful world to lure you away from the claims of men who suffer here and now. Our fellow men have a claim to our help; no generation must be sacrificed for the sake of future generations.
-- Karl Popper

Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again.
-- Karl Popper

I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence 'democracy,' and the other, 'tyranny.'.
-- Karl Popper

It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.
-- Karl Popper

It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one's partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner's backgrounds differ.
-- Karl Popper

It seems to me certain that more people are killed out of righteous stupidity than out of wickedness.
-- Karl Popper

Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.
-- Karl Popper

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.
-- Karl Popper

Now I think one of the reasons why religion developed in the way that it did over the centuries was precisely to curb this murderous bent that we have as human beings.
-- Karl Popper

Now this principle of induction cannot be a purely logical truth like a tautology or an analytic statement. . . .
-- Karl Popper

Our civilization...has not yet fully recovered from the shock of its birth
-- Karl Popper

Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.
-- Karl Popper

Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle
-- Karl Popper

Piecemeal social engineering resembles physical engineering in regarding the ends as beyond the province of technology.
-- Karl Popper

Science may be described as the art of systematic over-simplification.
-- Karl Popper

Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.
-- Karl Popper

The deepest, the only theme of human history, compared to which all others are of subordinate importance, is the conflict of skepticism with faith.
-- Karl Popper

There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions
-- Karl Popper

There is no history of mankind, there are only many histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world.
-- Karl Popper

There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life.
-- Karl Popper

There is no history, only histories.
-- Karl Popper

The attempt to produce Heaven on Earth often produces Hell.
-- Karl Popper

Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.
-- Karl Popper

To be ignorant of the past is to remain a child.
-- Karl Popper

True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it.
-- Karl Popper

We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell.
-- Karl Popper

We have become makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets.
-- Karl Popper

We must plan for freedom, and not only for security, if for no other reason than only freedom can make security more secure.
-- Karl Popper

When we enter a new situation in life and are confronted by a new person, we bring with us the prejudices of the past and our previous experiences of people. These prejudices we project upon the new person. Indeed, getting to know a person is largely a matter of withdrawing projections; of dispelling the smoke screen of what we imagine he is like and replacing it with the reality of what he is actually like.
-- Karl Popper

Why do I think that we, the intellectuals, are able to help? Simply because we, the intellectuals, have done the most terrible harm for thousands of years. Mass murder in the name of an idea, a doctrine, a theory, a religion
-- Karl Popper

You cannot have a rational discussion with a man who prefers shooting you to being convinced by you.
-- Karl Popper

[edit on 2-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.
-- Karl Popper

You really should take that one to heart.

And before you jump down my throat again, consider how kind I'm being to you. It's largely my occasional interjections that have saved your thread from being a monologue.

reply to post by Astyanax


For a minute there I would have liked to have known what evidence you have to make that statement.

But then I remembered who I am speaking to.
Otherwords you have nothing but an opinion and a massive ego to back it up coupled with at least a modicrum amount of verbal slipperiness.
Thought you put me on ignore?
Anyrate. Good day.


[edit on 3-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Thought you put me on ignore?

Wherever did you get such an idea?

I would never do that. You're funny.