User Profile


Essays: Blog:

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
All Posts
personIncludes personal and meta blogposts (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Any Good Criticism of Karl Popper's Epistemology?

2 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left

Recent Comments

I asked if anyone here has a criticism (including a reference they endorse). No one seems to. Apparently you personally are unfamiliar with the matter and expect me to open by assuming your ignorance and teaching you? Should I want to teach you? What value do you have to offer? If you want to be tau...(read more)

Verbalizing your entire framework/worldview is too hard, but CR manages to verbalize quite a lot of epistemology. Does LW have verbalized epistemology to rival CR, which is verbalized in a reasonably equivalent kinda way to e.g. Popper's books? I thought the claim was that it does. If you don't have...(read more)

I have asked LW to specify terms (preferably pre-written not ad hoc) – an alternative to Paths Forward – and no one has.

There are of course pre-existing criticisms of Hegel, e.g. by Popper in OSE. People have written that.

From your post I take that you believe "you need to offer any epistemology at all under which the arguments you're currently making are correct" to be true? If it is you should be able to explain how you came to believe that claim.

Epistemology is the field that tells you the methods of thinking, ...(read more)

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...(read more)

You seem to have at least one typo and also to suggest you disagree without directly saying so. Can you please clarify what you're saying? Also I don't know how you expect me to explain all the steps involved with CR to you given your ignorance of CR – should I rewrite multiple books in my reply, or...(read more)

Those don't learn. The coders are the knowledge creators and the machine does grunt work.

CR has arguments refuting induction – it doesn't work, has never been done, cannot be done. Induction is a myth, a confusion, a misconception that doesn't even refer to a well-defined physically-possible process of thought. (This is partly old – that induction doesn't work has been an unsolved probl...(read more)