Monthly Archives: February 2010

Karl Popper on Kant and a priori ideas

The problem ‘Which comes first, the hypothesis (H) or the observation (O),’ is soluble; as in the problem, ‘Which comes first, the hen (H) or the egg (O)’. The reply to the latter is, ‘An earlier kind of egg’; to … Continue reading

Posted in epistemology | 2 Comments

Karl Popper on the empirical base of science

This part of my lecture might be described as an attack on empiricism, as formulated for example in the following classical statement of Hume’s: ‘If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact . . ., you … Continue reading

Posted in science | 1 Comment

Karl Popper’s nine theses concerning epistemology

It is high time now, I think, to formulate the epistemological results of this discussion. I will put them in the form of nine theses. 1. There are no ultimate sources of knowledge. Every source, every suggestion, is welcome; and … Continue reading

Posted in epistemology | 1 Comment

Karl Popper’s 17 theses regarding scientific knowledge

1. All scientific knowledge is hypothetical or conjectural. 2. The growth of knowledge, and especially of scientific knowledge, consists in learning from our mistakes. 3. What may be called the method of science consists in learning from our mistakes systematically: … Continue reading

Posted in science | 2 Comments

Notes on essentialism

[I compiled these notes February of 2003. There are several things I would revise now, and some specific points where I feel I am in error. However, there are a lot of nice quotes here and plenty food for thought, … Continue reading

Posted in essentialism | 1 Comment

Notes on Karl Popper’s "Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition"

I consider this to be one of Popper’s more important essays, which is why I provide some rough study notes here. I highly recommend people read this essay. It is contained in Conjectures and Refutations, pages 162 to 182. 1. … Continue reading

Posted in epistemology | Leave a comment

Some notes on rationality

CRist (critical rationalist) – A person who does NOT hold a theory of rationality. TRist (traditional rationalist) – A person who does hold a theory of rationality. A CRist needs to distinguish between the truth and falsity in every case, … Continue reading

Posted in epistemology | 3 Comments