That's because people are criminally duped into believing "Truth" is and can be known for the purposes of making money and/or claiming authority/superiority over one another - i.e. enslaved minds enslaving other minds. Man is literally living a zombie apocalypse - and has been since the advent of kings.
Dieser Philosoph spricht meine Muttersprache, und ich verstehe alles, was er sagt. Das ist bei anderen Philosophen nicht so. Auf seinen Gedanken zur Erkenntnistheorie beruht die moderne Physik. Wer in einer Welt lebt, in der autokratische und totalitäre Systeme die Oberhand zu gewinnen scheinen, sollte sich mit seinem Hauptwerk „Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde“ beschäftigen. Ich jedenfalls werde es tun. Unendlichen Dank, Sir Karl.
I am a huge Popper fan girl. People are rightly suspicious of philosophers. So much navel gazing and going round in circles. (I am thinking of Heidegger just now in writing this.) But with the flowering of democracy and science, the 20th century saw several fundamentally important advances. Popper's views on the advance of scientific knowledge will stand the test of time. In this, he continued, refined, synthesized and expanded the Enlightenment's search for universal ethics and the liberation of the human mind. We need to popularize Popper's ideas. If we can figure out how to deliver the meme vector, this could be a cure for the plague of ignorance sweeping America. #RIPKarlPopper
A thought-provoking concept that has caught my attention is the notion that truth is defined by the actual state of affairs, rather than the propositions, statements or methods used to define or observe them. While the methods of observation may determine whether a given state of affairs is capable of being deemed true, they themselves do not embody the truth; it is the actual state of affairs that holds that distinction.
Thank you! This is a wonderful and succinct interview! The absolute truth...the Tao...are one and the same. The foundation of reality is beyond human perception, so we can never truly "know" what that is. Thanks again for posting this!
The issue I see with holding scientific beliefs as kinds of 'candidates for the truth' is that the experiments that disprove the theories are not perfect, so at the end of the day even things that have been 'proven' false could be true.
Sir Philosophy Overdose before getting taken down you had a few snippets of a Paul Feyerabend interview on the outside. The only interview on feyerabend on youtube right now is inside some kind of black room. Do you have the other interview to upload it again?
With regard to the concept of an "absolute truth", a paradox arises - as in Popper's paradox of tolerance - created by self-reference. According to its own statement, the sentence "There is no absolute truth" cannot itself be one. Epimenides' liar paradox , in which the Cretan Epimenides claims "All Cretans are liars." also belongs to this category. When listing self-referential statements, the question "Would you answer this question with "no"?" mentioned by Douglas Hofstadter, whose undecidability corresponds directly with Kurt Gödel's proof, should not be missing.
It's easy to conflate the processes and constraints of deductive and inductive inference, if we're unclear which we're applying at a given moment. The Liar Paradox and Russell's Barber Paradox are examples drawn from DEDUCTIVE formalisms: propositional logic and set theory respectively. (As is typical with these paradoxes, they arise from some aspect of self reference not provided for within the formalism.) It is the formalism which establishes theorems, and if these theorems can be proven then the proof is indeed absolute. The problem of naive set theory was provably resolved under ZFC, and with it the paradox. But not all theorems can be proven. What we face with an INDUCTIVE construction, by generalization from specific data, is always the possibility of further data invalidating the generalization. This is essentially exposing a Black Swan Fallacy, not a paradox. There is no possibility of absolute truth in such a system, since all inductive inferences are provisional. So let's be clear that, while Popper is talking about absolute truth in the context of inductive inference (where absolute truth is unachievable) he's doing so using deductive language (where absolute truth may be achievable, but where the potential for paradox may have to be addressed.)
Statement:All science especially proceeds speculatively. No amount experimentation can ever prove that statement right; a single experiment can prove that statement wrong."We can not identify it as being true".. this statement looks like the first statement..
How obvious his statements are after half a century. We almost have come to terms with some truth may be true enough for now; some may be true but may remain unprovable.
Correct! That statement doesn’t belong anymore to the domain of science, but to the domain of philosophy of science. Popper was a philosopher and as such he was doing a meta-analysis of scientific knowledge.
@@dorotasz2898 “there is the possibility * that I’m not advanced enough so I should look into it” sounds better to me, although I agree with you on critiquing the original comment.
@@dracowolfe305 Right, though to be very exact, the probability that an average youtube user is not advanced enough is significantly higher than the probability that Carl Popper's theses are too general and abstract. So I would say "It's highly probable that I'm not advanced enough". I know it's not diplomatic, but then again philosophy is about seeking the truth, isn't it? :)
@@dorotasz2898 absolutely. I have no idea why I made my original comment to be honest. I sometimes just comment what I’m thinking on the internet without realising I’m communicating with someone else. I hope I didn’t come across as judgmental :)
@@dorotasz2898 That doesn't have to be the case. While I understood the situations Popper was referring to, it is also the case that he didnt give any contextual examples (at least in this portion of the interview) to back up his argument. Whether the above observation is even important, is another thing entirely, but it could be what Chris Leon meant by abstractive and generalised.
The importance of this knowledge is criminally understated.
That's because people are criminally duped into believing "Truth" is and can be known for the purposes of making money and/or claiming authority/superiority over one another - i.e. enslaved minds enslaving other minds. Man is literally living a zombie apocalypse - and has been since the advent of kings.
Dieser Philosoph spricht meine Muttersprache, und ich verstehe alles, was er sagt. Das ist bei anderen Philosophen nicht so. Auf seinen Gedanken zur Erkenntnistheorie beruht die moderne Physik. Wer in einer Welt lebt, in der autokratische und totalitäre Systeme die Oberhand zu gewinnen scheinen, sollte sich mit seinem Hauptwerk „Die offene Gesellschaft und ihre Feinde“ beschäftigen. Ich jedenfalls werde es tun. Unendlichen Dank, Sir Karl.
I am a huge Popper fan girl. People are rightly suspicious of philosophers. So much navel gazing and going round in circles. (I am thinking of Heidegger just now in writing this.) But with the flowering of democracy and science, the 20th century saw several fundamentally important advances. Popper's views on the advance of scientific knowledge will stand the test of time. In this, he continued, refined, synthesized and expanded the Enlightenment's search for universal ethics and the liberation of the human mind. We need to popularize Popper's ideas. If we can figure out how to deliver the meme vector, this could be a cure for the plague of ignorance sweeping America. #RIPKarlPopper
No one cares about the view of a philosopher's "fan girl", get a philosophy degree and maybe someone will listen to you
A thought-provoking concept that has caught my attention is the notion that truth is defined by the actual state of affairs, rather than the propositions, statements or methods used to define or observe them. While the methods of observation may determine whether a given state of affairs is capable of being deemed true, they themselves do not embody the truth; it is the actual state of affairs that holds that distinction.
We prefer to only look for what reflects our desired outcomes.
Thank you for the uploads
Thank you! This is a wonderful and succinct interview! The absolute truth...the Tao...are one and the same. The foundation of reality is beyond human perception, so we can never truly "know" what that is. Thanks again for posting this!
Yes! More Popper please :)
rt
MESSI IS BETTER THAN PENALDO
more nonsense
The issue I see with holding scientific beliefs as kinds of 'candidates for the truth' is that the experiments that disprove the theories are not perfect, so at the end of the day even things that have been 'proven' false could be true.
Sir Philosophy Overdose before getting taken down you had a few snippets of a Paul Feyerabend interview on the outside. The only interview on feyerabend on youtube right now is inside some kind of black room. Do you have the other interview to upload it again?
With regard to the concept of an "absolute truth", a paradox arises - as in Popper's paradox of tolerance - created by self-reference.
According to its own statement, the sentence "There is no absolute truth" cannot itself be one.
Epimenides' liar paradox , in which the Cretan Epimenides claims "All Cretans are liars." also belongs to this category.
When listing self-referential statements, the question "Would you answer this question with "no"?" mentioned by Douglas Hofstadter,
whose undecidability corresponds directly with Kurt Gödel's proof, should not be missing.
It's easy to conflate the processes and constraints of deductive and inductive inference, if we're unclear which we're applying at a given moment.
The Liar Paradox and Russell's Barber Paradox are examples drawn from DEDUCTIVE formalisms: propositional logic and set theory respectively. (As is typical with these paradoxes, they arise from some aspect of self reference not provided for within the formalism.) It is the formalism which establishes theorems, and if these theorems can be proven then the proof is indeed absolute. The problem of naive set theory was provably resolved under ZFC, and with it the paradox. But not all theorems can be proven.
What we face with an INDUCTIVE construction, by generalization from specific data, is always the possibility of further data invalidating the generalization. This is essentially exposing a Black Swan Fallacy, not a paradox. There is no possibility of absolute truth in such a system, since all inductive inferences are provisional.
So let's be clear that, while Popper is talking about absolute truth in the context of inductive inference (where absolute truth is unachievable) he's doing so using deductive language (where absolute truth may be achievable, but where the potential for paradox may have to be addressed.)
@@starfishsystems Your comment was a great read and an even better clarification. Thanks for that.
Hello 🙂 Does anyone have a reference for this interview. Who conducts it? Where was it filmed. I want to use a quotation from it in a text. Thank you!
what happened to all the playlists? Did you have to delete?
His channel got deleted due to copyright issues,so he is reuploading everything.
The principle of incompleteness- Cedric Robinson
Statement:All science especially proceeds speculatively. No amount experimentation can ever prove that statement right; a single experiment can prove that statement wrong."We can not identify it as being true".. this statement looks like the first statement..
This is not a statement concerning empirical science in itself. Philosophy of science is not science in itself.
How obvious his statements are after half a century. We almost have come to terms with some truth may be true enough for now; some may be true but may remain unprovable.
It's great to see and hear him speak in his own voice.
#theeuropeangenerationbefore #sirkarlkpopper
This✋...and this 🤚
But the statement that “there exists an absolute truth,” is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific in the Popperian sense.
Hence the scope of ‘science’. We have to see it as a mechanism and acknowledge the scope it works under and all the assumptions that come with it.
Correct! That statement doesn’t belong anymore to the domain of science, but to the domain of philosophy of science. Popper was a philosopher and as such he was doing a meta-analysis of scientific knowledge.
All science is in its essence a theory and then he repeats 🙌🙌🙌
He is so abstract
Without perfection, there is no reason, for death💎
2+2=4, so i can live forever?
With perfection, there is a reason for death? i don't understand
@@Ignirium “In perfection, nothing grows”🎵
5:29 I'm offended, you're wrong, hate speech, and de-platformed, I am God.😎
You're chasing your tail. Wake up.
sounds like he's reich an vielen vielen nonsense buechers
imagine someone wasting their entire life on this ignorance
george soros
Same, I came here from George Soros.
I never heard of George before I took an interest in North Moronican politics.
But I had heard of Karl. George isn't really all that important.
Too abstractive and too generalization
The correct and humble comment would be: I’m not advanced enough to follow his trail of thought.
@@dorotasz2898 “there is the possibility * that I’m not advanced enough so I should look into it” sounds better to me, although I agree with you on critiquing the original comment.
@@dracowolfe305 Right, though to be very exact, the probability that an average youtube user is not advanced enough is significantly higher than the probability that Carl Popper's theses are too general and abstract. So I would say "It's highly probable that I'm not advanced enough". I know it's not diplomatic, but then again philosophy is about seeking the truth, isn't it? :)
@@dorotasz2898 absolutely. I have no idea why I made my original comment to be honest. I sometimes just comment what I’m thinking on the internet without realising I’m communicating with someone else. I hope I didn’t come across as judgmental :)
@@dorotasz2898 That doesn't have to be the case. While I understood the situations Popper was referring to, it is also the case that he didnt give any contextual examples (at least in this portion of the interview) to back up his argument.
Whether the above observation is even important, is another thing entirely, but it could be what Chris Leon meant by abstractive and generalised.