> This doesn’t solve the problem of figuring out which ideas are good, it just gives an arbitrary answer (shorter doesn’t mean truer).
It taken literally this suggests you don’t understand SI. Which says that shorter explanations are preferred all else being equal. A short hypothesis that strongly contradicts the data is not preferred to something consistent with the data in various ways.
I have ordered his response to critics and will read it. But I find the contrast bettwen his claimed disproof of induction and the no free lunch theorems reflects quite poorly on Popper.
What the NFL theorems say, roughly, is that to learn from inducation you need a prior on hypothesis. With that, you can learn. So example, a bias towards simplicity is a prior, as are spatial and temporal locality. No-one knows why these priors work but they do so far. Popper seems to say (like many philosphers he maintains plausible deniability) is that it us just am anazing fluke that it has worked so far.
What does Popper really offer? A room full of philosphers to work it out? Vague formulations like that we “prefer” certain hypothesis?
I don’t see anything of value so far but I will read his response.
On the other hand I wish more people woudl listen to him on the open society and the value of free discourse.
CR offers a general pupose epistemology. Epistemology is the most important field (because thinking methods are used by every other field), and CR has the only known general purpose epistemology that isn’t known to be wrong.
You asked for an elevator pitch, I provided one, and you then wrote “I don’t see anything of value so far” while not engaging with it (you responded to some addenda by guessing I’m grossly ignorant for some reason which is unclear to me). And yes of course SI rejects empirically refuted ideas first, so what? There are still infinitely many ideas left over after that.
I have ordered his response to critics and will read it.
I hope you will also write which responses you consider mistaken, and why, clearly, with quotes and details. Someone should, out of the many people who disagree with Popper and claim to be thinkers, don’t you think?
There are many people who are wrong and there’s no reason to write low texts about how everybody of them is wrong.
Being a thinker doesn’t mean that you have to argue about how everybody is wrong. If you think otherwise, how about writing a treatize about how Hegel was wrong (of course you actually have to read him first)?
It taken literally this suggests you don’t understand SI. Which says that shorter explanations are preferred all else being equal. A short hypothesis that strongly contradicts the data is not preferred to something consistent with the data in various ways.
I have ordered his response to critics and will read it. But I find the contrast bettwen his claimed disproof of induction and the no free lunch theorems reflects quite poorly on Popper.
What the NFL theorems say, roughly, is that to learn from inducation you need a prior on hypothesis. With that, you can learn. So example, a bias towards simplicity is a prior, as are spatial and temporal locality. No-one knows why these priors work but they do so far. Popper seems to say (like many philosphers he maintains plausible deniability) is that it us just am anazing fluke that it has worked so far.
What does Popper really offer? A room full of philosphers to work it out? Vague formulations like that we “prefer” certain hypothesis?
I don’t see anything of value so far but I will read his response.
On the other hand I wish more people woudl listen to him on the open society and the value of free discourse.
CR offers a general pupose epistemology. Epistemology is the most important field (because thinking methods are used by every other field), and CR has the only known general purpose epistemology that isn’t known to be wrong.
You asked for an elevator pitch, I provided one, and you then wrote “I don’t see anything of value so far” while not engaging with it (you responded to some addenda by guessing I’m grossly ignorant for some reason which is unclear to me). And yes of course SI rejects empirically refuted ideas first, so what? There are still infinitely many ideas left over after that.
I hope you will also write which responses you consider mistaken, and why, clearly, with quotes and details. Someone should, out of the many people who disagree with Popper and claim to be thinkers, don’t you think?
There are many people who are wrong and there’s no reason to write low texts about how everybody of them is wrong.
Being a thinker doesn’t mean that you have to argue about how everybody is wrong. If you think otherwise, how about writing a treatize about how Hegel was wrong (of course you actually have to read him first)?
There are of course pre-existing criticisms of Hegel, e.g. by Popper in OSE. People have written that.