The Myth of the Framework

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

This record preserves its author, date and source link. Open HN to read the full context.

…communication across paradigms, but Popper is more optimistic and says by an effort we can learn from each other even across paradigms/cultures/frameworks (see Popper's _The Myth of the Framework_, title essay). I looked through ch8 also, but didn't spot any criticism of Popper's falsificationism. If you are still convinced it is there, please explain it in your own words or site specific paragraphs. PS regarding justificationism, the prevailing idea of knowledge is that it is justified true belief. This can be found in the dictionary or any intro philosophy textbook. PPS It is unfortunate that PG's nested thread rate limiting is hiding the reply link on this comment. I think this is a perfectly good, respectful thread. So it's collateral damage? :(

The Fabric of Reality The Fountainhead The Myth of the Framework The Skeptical Environmentalist The Machinery of Freedom etc Ideas are what impresses me most.

Deutsch only has one book out, which is very good. My only warning is that half of it is sort of off topic (physics, virtual reality, computation, time travel). But that's ok, because of the density of ideas fit into each chapter. http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Impl... Popper has lots of books. Maybe The Myth of the Framework is a good choice. As I recall, it has content from lectures he gave to people not already familiar with his philosophy, so those parts are especially clear and accessible. Proposing an actual moral goal is tricky, because we have to be careful to keep separate the issues of whether there are true moral ideas, and whether my particular idea is true. And very strictly, my idea will not be true. It will have truth to it, but not be perfect. Which may be a confusing concept, because the prevailin…

There's only a truth to the matter if you can get people to agree on a premise. Two libertarians who adopt the same premises can have a meaningful debate This is the myth of the framework. See Popper's book by that name: http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Framework-Defence-Science-Rationa... Besides the issue of whether productive debate is possible across frameworks, there is also your (possibly accidental) assertion that what premises people believe affects what statements about reality are true (beyond statements about who believes what). That's solipsism.