MrKrabs on Nostr: Yeah, Popperian falsificationism is the best empirical approach to science, but it is ...
Yeah, Popperian falsificationism is the best empirical approach to science, but it is insufficient when it comes to a priori reasoning. Popper really had a knack for understanding the fallibility of people, including taking any other person's assertions on faith or assuming that a definition was THE authoritative definition. But to call all a priori reasoning trivial in the sense of NEVER telling us anything directly about the real world is absurd, not to mention the argument defeats itself.
One must only be aware of the tenuousness of definitions and context, and aware of the need for independent logical verification and independent empirical uncertainty and falsification to achieve a sufficient "criticalness" to their rationalism.
I haven't read enough to know about the fire poker argument, I should like to though. Sounds intriguing!
Published at
2025-01-12 00:37:51Event JSON
{
"id": "9b1230e7d442b3712724d2d70fc7914c396fd38eadea2d5ff112a162ca344665",
"pubkey": "088644bfb2e82f4f44411b130e5b4ecbd41d3c0144f2681accc4f2e8da7cadf9",
"created_at": 1736642271,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"08f92375a2c17b21c6c9a06daa467d5b2c86a6f51a8ac303ee352420c3d94a29",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"379f015d55d0a042dddab7de2cec78fe702e5df4bc3c92a1fa89e61c9241b4af"
],
[
"e",
"60fcfb718d92fc6b812ee1a8fde022acf21d17941add09ea5b314f0a36b332b3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"9edd72eb23222c969379d90d60ec82891b7c827188bb28510a863f59cb697b0a"
],
[
"p",
"088644bfb2e82f4f44411b130e5b4ecbd41d3c0144f2681accc4f2e8da7cadf9"
],
[
"p",
"e460cb14ba897786a6758c153eb915eaa55ccb6818153d47f55ebce101bb5ced"
]
],
"content": "Yeah, Popperian falsificationism is the best empirical approach to science, but it is insufficient when it comes to a priori reasoning. Popper really had a knack for understanding the fallibility of people, including taking any other person's assertions on faith or assuming that a definition was THE authoritative definition. But to call all a priori reasoning trivial in the sense of NEVER telling us anything directly about the real world is absurd, not to mention the argument defeats itself.\n\nOne must only be aware of the tenuousness of definitions and context, and aware of the need for independent logical verification and independent empirical uncertainty and falsification to achieve a sufficient \"criticalness\" to their rationalism.\n\nI haven't read enough to know about the fire poker argument, I should like to though. Sounds intriguing!",
"sig": "20659a6a8e5de8f932e13cb9df20ad55d04e52ff364dbd727b47ffbc0d989b31e3862101a58eb68572ceb90211404144a57305418883094527d3320f88029373"
}
