Completely agreed. For the sake of historical accuracy, though - bsky.app/profile/tcla....

Popper aficionado 👋🏼

Popper's point in the paradox of tolerance concerns the limits to allowing political actors who are hostile to certain principles of a broadly liberal form of governance, to act without contraint. Free speech comes into it only secondarily to this point, and subject to it.

Sure. And, well, Popper's such a good thinker that he gets (mis)used by people on all sides of an issue! 🤭

bsky.app/profile/tcla...

Popper aficionado here.

The paradox Popper refers to - at several points in his writing, not just the OSE footnote - isn't a general, "apriori" one, but rather one he claims is inherent *in an assumption, (absolute) value(ing) or argument*, according to which tolerance must be granted absolutely.

Well aware.

Popper afficionado here.

The paradox of intolerance has to do with threats to concrete liberal rule - politically, who's in power and what the actual power relations are - not the limits of acceptable social practice (except to say that the latter requires the former in place to be relevant).

bsky.app/profile/tcla...

Popper didn't claim scientific hypotheses "should be rejected as soon as... empirical evidence reveals one instance incompatible with it". Accepted contradicting evidence needed to corroborate a falsifying (and itself testable) theory, and repeated that theories shouldn't be abandoned too hastily.

My (2') referred to Hooker's comment just before it - ie concerning Popper, not the argument that preceded it.

Popper aficionado here:

Both this (2) and the previous (1) posts don't quite get P right.

(1') the "one counterexample" had to do with the *logical* status of theories - the data here isn't a theory - not necessarily in practice.

(2') P always acknowledged probabilistic statements within science.

Thanks. On Lakatos - criminally abbreviated - nearly all of his supposed critique of Popper is already in Popper - including the notion of research programs (that Lakatos saw in P's manuscripts).

Marxism: Popper sympathised with Marx's concerns; the critiques mostly aimed at "scientific" Marxism.

Fair enough. 👍🏼

What constitutes a "need" for some philosopher('s ideas) within philosophy is tricky; a thinker who no longer bears on any philosophical problem might, arguably, be a candidate.

But then given that induction in some form or other is still widely endorsed, that alone would mean we still need Popper.

Popper afficionado here 👋🏼

What does being continental have to do with "screw (anyone)"? And is there something specific to Popper that made him the target of that exclamation?

(Popper afficionado here.)

Popper's falsification criterion wasn't meant to explain as much as it was a proposal in light of philosophical problems, given accepted aims.

He later (pre-Kuhn) acknowledged the role in science of theories that don't meet it, and stressed their criticizability as key.

Not an actual Popper quote.
bsky.app/profile/tcla...

I think you would be right on that. Popper's core insight was the importance of effective criticism, not only the producing of theories. Though he wouldn't quite put it this way, the "point" of multiple contradictory theories would be as grist for a critical pruning process - *in pursuit of truth.*

Re Popper - yes, but.

He indeed enrolled in more Schlick courses than any other lecturer but Buhler. However, he was quickly disillusioned, and the sharp criticism of Schlick's theory of knowledge in Popper's dissertation carried into his first book. He was first and foremost Buhler's student.

Popper afficionado here 👋🏼

P was not particularly a proponent of there being "different kinds of truth and reality". Can you give a direction of what you had in mind here?

יאפ.

A spirited response, no doubt - but you haven't answered the question.

Points for enthusiasm, but you haven't answered the question.

The benefits to Islamists right on Israel's borders having advanced weaponry are - what, exactly? (See Hamas and Hezbollah for reference.)

Played there once, but the phone convo was hilarious. "Sorry, we're fully booked. Wait, you guys are from where? *Israel*? Holy s#*t ok I'm booking you for Wednesday."

The call for action is well placed. Still, best to see theory and action as part of the same thing, lest we repeat what Popper demonstrated in this amusing tidbit (back when it was widely held that science just *was* action - going out and collecting observations).

True, but then much of philosophy - ethical and political ideals particularly come to mind - isn't trying to describe current reality in the first place.

Fwiw, Popper did see quite a few examples of his proposal at play throughout science's history - intended or not.

Popper enthusiast here. (He was a major - though far from sole - contributor to Tetlock's idea here.)

Note the statement isn't that all scientific knowledge is *false*, only that it's tentative. It's about the epistemic status of theories, since we don't have how to verify (or "justify") them.

Yeah, Popper noted (complained of) this sort of science in his own day too. One of his goals was to outline a rational, defensible analysis - quite apart from any particular theory - of why this *shouldn't* be taken personally, and how the very opposite of what you've described is the way to go.