Quotes About Popper

Popper says that the best way out of the problem of having unconscious points of view is to state clearly one's view and to recognize that there are also other points of view.

We never know any data before interpreting it through theories. All observations are, as Popper put it, theory-laden,* and hence fallible, as all our theories are. Consider

Testability is now generally accepted as the defining characteristic of the scientific method. Popper called it the 'criterion of demarcation' between science and non-science.

I think that success in life is largely a matter of luck. It has little correlation with merit, and in all fields of life there have been many people of great merit who did not succeed – Popper

One has to read Heidegger in the original to see what a swindler he was," said Popper. His philosophy was "empty verbiage put together in statements which are absolutely empty."19 On this even Carnap—not Popper's biggest fan—concurred.

lethal combination of alcohol and drugs. Immediately after I popped the amyl nitrate under his nose, he stiffened. "What is that you're giving me?" he choked. "I'm just giving you a harmless popper," I told him, "so don't worry about it. Inhale, inhale.

Whatever moisture is left in the popcorn when it gets from harvest to bag to your popper is what's going to determine how well the corn pops.

It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.

In April 2013, Nathaniel Popper of 'The New York Times' reported on Bitcoin in an article titled, 'Digital Money is Gaining Champions in the Real World'.

Taleb likes to invoke Popper: 'No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.

The failure of Popper's demarcation criterion throws up an important question. Is it actually possible to find some common feature shared by all the things we call 'science...'? It may be that they share some fixed set of features that define what it is to be science, but it may not.... If so, a simple criterion for demarcating science from pseudo-science is unlikely to be found.

En The Open Society and its Enemies, de donde proceden estas citas, Popper es meridianamente claro: «economic power may be nearly as dangerous as physical violence» («el poder económico puede ser casi tan peligroso como la violencia física»)[44].

philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions, the theory survives and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.

This is, more or less, what the great twentieth-century philosopher of science Karl R. Popper and his followers have called the principle of falsifiability. Science is distinctive, not because it proves true statements, but because it seeks systematically to disprove (falsify) false ones.

Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able to even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.

Consciente de las conexiones del esteticismo político con la violencia, Popper (1992b: 628, nota 4) ofrece, en cambio, dos principios que deben guiar toda política racionalmente crítica: "no podemos traer el paraíso a la tierra" y "la mejor siempre consiste en la elección del mal más pequeño".

Many people, including myself, had our scientific lives changed by the inspiring new vision of science that Popper gave us.

There can be no ultimate statements science: there can be no statements in science which can not be tested, and therefore none which cannot in principle be refuted, by falsifying some of the conclusions which can be deduced from them.

As indicated by our example, methodological nominalism is nowadays fairly generally accepted in the natural sciences. The problems of the social sciences, on the other hand, are still for the most part treated by essentialist methods. This is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons for their backwardness.

Popper espoused what became known as 'falsificationism', the doctrine that what we are interested in the sciences is the conditions under which we should reject a proposed law or theory; the proposition that 'all swans are white' is decisively refuted by one black swan, no matter how often it has been 'verified' by sightings of white swans.

All nationalism or racialism is evil, and Jewish nationalism is no exception.

The Vienna Circle was empiricist and phenomenalist, Popper was a critical rationalist.

The theory I have in mind is one which does not proceed, as it were, from a doctrine of the intrinsic goodness or righteousness of a majority rule, but rather from the baseness of tyranny; or more precisely, it rests upon the decision, or upon the adoption of the proposal, to avoid and to resist tyranny.

Popper introduced the mechanism of conjectures and refutations, which works as follows: you formulate a (bold) conjecture and you start looking for the observation that would prove you wrong.