So whats everyone's take on Karl Popper? Im studying Sociology in my 30s, and Im currently reading some of the foundational stuff for Critical Theory. Ive been reading a bit about the "debate" between Popper and the Frankfurt School. I was already familiar with some of his premises (like falsification), but I was wondering what contemporary hard sciences have to say about his ideas
>>17065249He's basically irrelevant. No one learns how to do science from Popper. If they did, they wouldn't even get as far as Classical Physics.
>>17065249Like anyone who sacrifices his life for his legacy, Popper is now mostly synonymous with the dull annoyance of undergraduate course schedules. Was there anything in particular about the "debate" you've been reading a bit about that made you post his face here?
>>17065252His ideas about scientific development and demarcation, for example. I was aware of his obsolence, although not to what extent, nor what would be the "replacement" in contemporary science
>>17065257Can you embed a quote of his that you agree or disagree with into a sentence of your own that you think adds or subtracts something from that quote? If not, what's the point of your OP?
>>17065264Absolutely devastating post to OP and his kind
>>17065295>OP and his kindI'm not antifaggot
>>17065251FPBP
>>17065249All modern science works by falsification, but doesn't need to know what the concept is, read Feynman on naming birds to understand it better than Popper ever could.
>>17065406>>17065404Still no less-interesting quote embedded in your own potentially-more-interesting quote you'd like someone else to find interest in. Now why is that?
>>17065425>Pooper>interesting
>>17065249He took the Frankfurt commie cult to the woodshed with falsification and that makes him a Chad in my book.
>>17065249induction is probabalistic
>>17065427>>17065428>>17065436Still no "Pooper" quote embedded in any sentence that claims to add or subtract value from the embedded "Pooper" quote. Jesus fucking Christ.
>>17065456>i like to discuss an out-of-context bazinga quotes>no, i don't like to read the source material, how did you know?
>In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.What did Pooper mean by this statement? Is it falsifiable? Or is it not talking about reality? Or is it talking about reality despite being unfalsifiable because it's unscientific?
>>17065459>bazingaYou can't appeal to reddit while exemplifying reddit.
>>17065482>n-n-noo! you can't just do a bazinga while denouncing bazingasIf Pooper is allowed to do it then so am I.
>>17065483I'm open to that; just embed a quote you read, in a novel sentence that you wrote, such that the sentence you wrote is either additive or subtractive to that quote.
>>17065492 Is that how you cope with your inability to address my legitimate questions (>>17065470) about a legitimate Popper quote? I'd say that subtracts something from the legitimacy of the take in that quote.
>>17065505Can you embed a quote of his that you agree or disagree with into a sentence of your own that you think adds or subtracts something from that quote? If not, what's the point of your OP?
A mentally ill and mindbroken bot will react to this post. I don't mean anyone specific, just that if there is such an entity in the vicinity, it will identify as such.
>>17065513Can you embed a quote of his that you agree or disagree with into a sentence of your own that you think adds or subtracts something from that quote? If not, what's the point of your OP?
>>17065513>Indian reply syntaxAlso pic rel
>>17065249Lying jewish retard who has literally ruined society by vilifying Platonic though. Either stupid or malevolent, possibly both.
Guess there's always more than one of them.
>>17065525>>17065536X := Popper; x := Popper quoteJust embed x into any sentence that says anything you do or don't like about X. It shouldn't be that hard lol
>>17065541It's retarded to claim "In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality" because the statement itself is unfalsifiable, and implies that Popper either wasn't talking about reality at all, or that he was making an unscientific claim, which should nonetheless be taken seriously by actual scientists, as a criterion for what is or isn't scientific.
>>17065553So he was making an unscientific claim in an unscientific context. How is that any different than Tao's blog where he metaphorically shoved his ant snout into Hillary Clinton's sex organ?
>>17065561>So he was making an unscientific claim in an unscientific context.He clearly thought his claim was not only scientifically relevant but central to science. Why should unfalsifiable, unscientific claims have any weight in a scientific context?
>>17065561>>17065596Alternatively, if claims like his are admissible as guidelines for the entire scientific enterprise (despite being unfalsifiable), why shouldn't the construction of physical theories be guided by unfalsifiable ontological premises?
>>17065596>>17065602The context of a bitch slap. Is what you're missing. If I catch you fucking my sister, and I break it up, and I bitch slap a few teeth out of your mouth, and I write a blog about how you shouldn't fuck your friends' sisters, it doesn't mean I wouldn't fuck your sister.
The Closer. He closes.Anyone hanging around afterwards is suspect of vagrancy about subject to detainment.
>>17065610>Indian reply syntaxFeel free to say whatever you want to say directly to whoever you want to say it to.
>>17065607Pretty low-IQ post.
>>17065619>PrettyThanks :3 glad you could tell
OP here. This is the quote you've been asking for, anon:>"your mother is a whore".- Karl PopperI mean, maybe your mom isnt a whore, it could be false therefore it is true
>>17065655>Indian reply syntaxSo you made a thread about being mad about something you're "currently reading," but you haven't actually read anything. Are you even really mad or are you just some scholastic or biological heir of Popper's who's trying to fluff his own (ir)relevance by dryhumping a corpse?
