Talk:Karl Popper

Religion Lutheranism (de jure) Humanitarianism and Agnosticism (de facto)?

Can anyone explain how Popper was a 'de jure' Lutherian, as it claims in the infobox? Which law was involved in making this determination? He appears to have been baptised as a Lutherian, but I can't see how this would establish any enduring legal status. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody misusing the tag? Let's change it. Myrvin (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In Austrian law, churches and religions with many members are organized as De:Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, in effect being part of the state but cut off from almost all secular power. Membership in those bodies is attained by baptism (or whatever formal act the religion specifies), this membership is a legal status and has legal consequences. For example, the bodies can pass laws that apply to their members with respect to their internal affairs. Having said that, I think the current version is okay, too. --rtc (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"part of their cultural assimilation, not as an expression of devout belief"

Wow, that is really offensive. Bunch of jerks. 99.247.1.157 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

How about a spelling standard?

The article has both "defence" and "maneuvers".
It has "behaviour" and "behavior".
Could it have a single standard, like UK (Cambridge) or UK (Oxford)?
So, "defence", "manoeuvres", "behaviour". 99.247.1.157 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, we should comply with WP:ENGVAR and in this article consistently use UK spellings, with one standard being chosen for the article. I'se happier with Cambridge, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling allows either so as long as it's consistent throughout the article... dave souza, talk 21:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some of this. I left one "behavior" because I think it was in a US quote. Myrvin (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, but I too prefer Cambridge, in spite of Oxford's similarity to Canadian standards.

Respecting a source's spelling seems reasonable to everyone outside of the US. The Americans routinely rename places in Canada to match their spelling. They think we have "Harbors" and "Centers" in this country which we bloody well do not.

It is perfectly allowable to normalize (Cdn, Oxford) "behavior" as "behavio[u]r" to make it crystal clear that a standard is in force.

In Toronto, 99.247.1.157 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Influenced by: Hegel ???

Let me put it this way: Quite unlikely (unless you want to interpret his polemic against Hegel as a sign that Popper was "influenced" by him).--94.220.209.68 (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Putting this back in. In Popper's later metaphysical works (see especially Objective Knowledge, chapter 3, section 5.2), he gave qualified support to Hegel's views. Let me quote literally from Objective Knowledge, chapter 8, section 2: "My various schemata such as P1 TT EE P2 may indeed be looked upon as improvements and rationalizations of the Hegelian dialectic schema" --rtc (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

RTC - Both citations, taken in context, attempt to clarify that *apparent* similarities to ideas of Hegel are not the case. I have to agree with the section in parenthesis of the first comment above. TannyC (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

So the conclusion of this discussion is that the only argument put forward in favour of adding Hegel as influence was incorrect. Why was he not deleted? It should have been easy to provide a secondary source if the claim had been correct. Yuyuhunter (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Grubl

The article and a couple of sources say this man's name was RAIMUND Grubl, and Popper was given his name as his middle name. However, in Unended Quest, Popper writes that this man's name was CARL Grubl. Does anyone know which is correct? - You'd think that Karl would know. Perhaps he was called Karl after Carl?? 08:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought about a germane question: What was his first name, that shouldn't be too difficult to find out from e.g. geni? And it was even easier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raimund_Grübl109.204.149.177 (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Conjectures and Refutations deletion

Recently I went to a page (a stub, really) with this Popper book title, and found that the bulk of the article text had been cribbed directly from the back cover of a Routledge edition of this volume (see below). I addressed the issue as best I could as an editor, to call attention to the issue, here [1] and in the article. I apparently did so too effectively—the article has been deleted in toto. (See also this edit: [].) I am transplanting the brief bit of the article's Talk here, from this page, anticipating it will be found and face the same fate as the article. This is all FYI, but followed with one request: Can C&R not be given its own subsection, within the article, so it can be linked to in other articles? Thanks for the consideration, and for all the dedicated hard work at this parent article. Le Prof 05:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Pub (section title) —— this book is first published in 1962 by Basic Books. Not 1963. See here: http://lccn.loc.gov/63011566 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.112.66.185 (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Title (section title) —— If I remember correctly, "Conjectures and Refutations" is also the title of the first essay in the book's collection, and which sets the theme. This Wikipedia article ought begin by exposing this ambiguity. -smh@alum.mit.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfamade (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarised material converted to block quote (section title) —— …to avoid having to delete and so eviscerate the article. Shame on the editor that did this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I will go a step further; how in bloody… did 19 non-IP editors edit this article over 6 years, including initially moving the awkward, IP-editor placed block of plagiarised text from on obviously novice-placed position on the page of the stub to its current integrated position, then remove the puffery of the back cover text, and not entertain any suspicion? Does AGF mean we accept miraculous manifestations of block text containing puffery, and not (as I did to establish the plagiarism) pick a sentence and search the web for it? This is unfathomable. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

}} }}

On Influence: Wittgenstein

On the german wikipedia, it quotes him comparing Wittgenstein with the catholic church, with him stating that he (Wittgenstein) tries to forbid any discussion about questions he (Wittgenstein) can't answer. Copied from german wikipedia (Source): "In Poppers mündlicher Doktorprüfung (Rigorosum) 1928 war Schlick Beisitzer, wobei es zum Streit kam, da Popper nach Schlicks Auffassung überzogene Kritik an dem von Schlick geschätzten Ludwig Wittgenstein übte; dieser wolle „wie die katholische Kirche die Diskussion sämtlicher Fragen verbieten, auf die er keine Antwort wisse“<ref>vgl. unter anderem Edmonds/Eidinow 2005</ref>."
So we can say that he was, at least early in his career, highly dismissive about Wittgenstein.
Has anyone sources that he changed his mind about him later on?188.101.113.87 (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

We'll Wittgenstein did change his mind later on.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

He did, but did Popper? :/ --188.101.116.117 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets just remove him as an influence in absence of sources to the contrary.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Students or workers or comrades

After a deletion of some uncited text by me, and its replacement by referenced material, an editor has reinstated and expanded the deleted words with referenced statements. However, that reinstatement has deleted my cited text. My words said that students took part in a demonstration in 1919 and some were killed, the latest reference [2] seem to be saying that workers marched and were shot. The reference also says that opper didn't know about the coup. I cannot see where it says he later found out. Earlier on in the text, we have "party comrades" in a "street battle". Popper himself says "But then came the catastrophe. One day in June 1919 a Party-sponsored demonstration of unarmed young comrades was fired upon by the police, and there were a number of deaths (eight if I remember rightly)."[3]. I suppose they could all be true, but there does seem to be confusion here. Myrvin (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"I cannot see where it says he later found out." This is in fact from a different source, not yet cited: "In the aftermath, Popper learned that the protest was designed as part of a coup plotted by the Austrian Communists in cooperation with and under the influence of Bela Kun, the Hungarian Communist leader."[4] However, this secondary source does not provide a primary source for its claim. It may well be that the author read but misunderstood Hacohen. On the other hand, Hacohen does not make it explicit whether "[Popper] did not realize that it was part of a coup" refers to the demonstration or to his break with communism. So as you say, it could all be true. Unfortunately, Hacohen cites a draft of the autobiography which I don't have... On the other hand, it would not change Popper's point very much. He clearly says the demonstration was "instigated by the communists .. to help some communists to escape" and "Marxist theory demands that the class struggle be intensified" (Unended Quest p.32f). Perhaps we better mention the attempted coup without implying that Popper found out about it? I am not sure. --rtc (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

He certainly can't get his name right. Myrvin (talk)

That's true, so I don't think the source can be considered reliable. --rtc (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Making instrumentalism relevant

I invite comments on a proposed revision of Instrumentalism, incorporating the conflicting roles of Popper and Dewey in defining the movement and its dependence on induction, and showing current practice of those roles. See talk: Instrumentalism, entries 20 and 21.TBR-qed (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation: In 2004, philosopher and psychologist Michel ter Hark (Groningen, The Netherlands) published a book, called Popper, Otto Selz and the rise of evolutionary epistemology, ISBN 0-521-83074-5, in which he claimed that Popper took some of his ideas from his tutor, the German psychologist Otto Selz. Selz himself never published his ideas, partly because of the rise of Nazism which forced him to quit his work in 1933, and the prohibition of referring to Selz' work. Popper, the historian of ideas and his scholarship, is criticised in some academic quarters, for his rejection of Plato, Hegel and Marx.

Specially the bold: that should not be written like that. Probably written by mr ter Hark himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.2.235.216 (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Popper and Dewey on induction

I contrast Popper's arguments against induction with Dewey's reconstruction and defense in the article on Instrumentalism.TBR-qed (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Was Popper a conservative?

I found a source that suggests he wasn't Conservative. Popper as a Conservative or Libertarian I don't know how reliable my source is. Experts please check. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an excellent, high-quality, peer-reviewed source. It contains a lengthy discussion on his political views and whether he can be classed as merely a liberal, or also a social democrat, a libertarian, a conservative... http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/#SH2d He was not a conservative, per se, but neither did the text you removed say he was. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 11:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Could include something about the building named after him at University of Canterbury?

At the University of Canterbury in Christchurch is the Karl Popper building, which is used for History and maybe philosophy. Potentially could be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElizabethAGWilson (talk • contribs) 06:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A hard-core antimetaphysical

Karl Popper was the ultimate antimetaphysical which ever existed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4104:7800:756D:3D0C:F4DC:4F05 (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Karl Popper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151204150904/http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm to http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151204150904/http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm to http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150913135902/http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper.htm to http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151204150904/http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm to http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/philosophy_popper_toc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Karl Popper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523175543/http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k08_c_karl/prf_e.html to http://www.inamori-f.or.jp/laureates/k08_c_karl/prf_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125104053/http://liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=678 to http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=678

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy of Arithmetic

It would be helpful to explain how Popper thought that "2 apples + 2 apples make 4 apples" could be falsified. Without an explanation, this may puzzle some readers.  Seadowns (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Popper and the Vietnam War

There is no reference in the article to Popper's support for the US-led Vietnam War. I clearly remember newspaper articles in which he defended the US war in south eastern Asia, although I cannot find any evidence in the net. This astonishing position can be explained by Poppers rejection of communist totaliarianism. Amazing that he ignored the cruelty of this fatal war. Popper was in his early seventies around his statement and cannot have been all that senile.Ontologix (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"His" theory? ...the big picture is missing.

It seems the big picture is missing from this article: Popper revolutionized the philosophy of science and thus practical Science itself. Popper was/is as important to Science as Einstein was/is to Physics. The constant notation of "Popper's theory" (for example; falsification,) could imply some (smart) kook in the corner's theory. It's written as if Science was just now considering his ideas, and ignores that Science now accepts them as "fact," that they are now the basis for modern scientific logic and inquiry. It ignores that often saying "Popper said:" is same as "Science says:" Its as if true quotations from the past are copy and pasted into the present...as if his hypothesis was still being tested. Reading the article, one must ask: so what!? Who cares? This is nothing like the Einstein article.

"It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not, genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable." Past tense.

Practical scientific inquiry takes falsifiability as it's criterion of demarcation between what is, and is not genuinely scientific: a theory can only be considered scientific if it is falsifiable. Currently true. True? Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Just a slight expansion on the above. Example (using valid lay language): The statement "Science believes that ghosts don't exist." ...is not true because "ghosts exist" cannot be falsified. Therefore the question is outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Science can have no opinion on it. This concept has huge ramifications in (for example;) practical science, for example; where to allocate scarce resources such as time and money. "Falsification" for example is also important to the Philosophy of Science, but I'm not inclined to attempt that far more complex argument here. (And yes, unlike the solo Einstein story, Thomas Kuhn might be about equally as important to science; thus not such a catchy or sexy story. This should not be a strong Wikipedia value.)

I believe this should be in the lede section and permeate the article. Besides being more factual, it would be more readable and interesting; stated Wiki values. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Excessive Lazy Links (and jargon) in Lede

Yes, writing links are usually far easier than good writing which often requires effort, but they are no replacement. Many people (including me) avoid links whenever possible 1) because many are indeed the result of lazy writers who never bothered to try the sentence by following the link; thus poor fits to the original half-attempted meaning. 2) And lazy links further enforce this avoidance by sending the reader to a one-way trip down a rabbit hole. 3) Many people come to a site seeking only a loose working definition, not an all day "education."

Often only a few words are needed to make a sentence intelligible, for example; "Joe Schmo disagreed." Vs. "Joe Schmo, king of Finland, disagreed." The author may intend to only add the info; "king of Finland" with the link, but the reader has no idea that that's all he needs to know about Joe, so struggles away wasting his time reading needless info all about Joe Schmo's childhood and life. Key: "Joe Schmo disagreed." REQUIRES following the lazy link for ANY understanding of the meaningless sentence, and fair chance the once-bitten reader will avoid following links. That's avoidable communication failure, And a degradation of Wikipedia's mission. Only in rare cases should links be required to understand the main text, normally they should be optional, supplemental info.

Inappropriate jargon is also an example of poor writing. ...Because the words have not been adapted to the target audience; non-specialist "Joe Sixpack," in Wikipedia's case. All of this is explained in various Wiki guidelines. Here is just one of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section MOS:LEAD

"The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes.[1] The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."
"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2]   The notability of..."

the Core Lede paragraph:

"Generally regarded as one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers of science,[13][14][15] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments. Popper is also known for his opposition to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".[16]"

Yer kiddin me, right? Every single key concept! Communication? It is a good draft. I agree, good writing is usually very difficult and time consuming. Correcting the above paragraph?...guessing over two hours. Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:C5FF:F292:7567:1FB5 (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Do we have a project page about this "lazy linking"? If not, I think we should use these comments as the basis for a WP:LAZYLINK essay. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Evidence

This edit and subsequent ones are likely inspired by today's XKCD. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

It might also explain the spike in page views - see the chart at the top of this page. GoingBatty (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

False impression

The false impression is given that Einstein's theory was the only one that predicted that light is deflected by gravity. Actually, there is a deflection in Newton's theory, but to a smaller extent. Calculations were made by Soldner in 1801 and 1804.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.216.125 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how that matters. The point of that paragraph is the deflection is falsifiable. That there were other theories doesn't make that section false. This article isn't about physics so I would avoid trying to spell out how Einstein's prediction differed from Newton's. I think the oversimplification is fine. Please suggest better wording, with a citation. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The importance of Lakatos is understimated'

Dear all,

In the collection of essays named Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Lakatos wrote a very important review of Karl Popper's ideas. Possibly one of the best reviews of all time, since Lakatos was a Popper's student, but also a very acute and deep analyst.

I'm considering to mention this in Karl Popper article, if nobody is already doing this. Since I'm no philosopher, I count on the regular contributors of Popper's article to correct and improve my poor contribution.

All the best,
--Hgfernan (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

First indroduction in italy

Indroducing popper philosophy in italy is due to prof. Marcello pera snd publisher Armando in Roma. Marcello pera later become president of the Senate parliement. In term of university studies, popper tough was the merit of prof. Ludovico geymonat that indroduced first time in Italy the "philosophy of science" lessons in the 1070 ,around. Myself made my doctorate written thesy "la ricerca senza fine e il fine della ricerca" id est "unended quest snd the reason of quest" discussed june 1980 at the universita statale in Milano 110/110. Inside that work in a very audacios trial I have confronted the popper thoigh with that of the gigant Martin heideggert, being the two thinkers in a different philosophical valley. I advanced my philosophical opinion toward the Thomas Kuhn thesis, not convincing me the sbstract and cold "trial & error" popperian mantra. The Martin Heidegger approach to the "tecnic" has some points of interest about all the theoretical construction of philosophy of science. At the end of my sccademic lifespan I finally finoshed to be a fan of Paul feyerabend. To note, for lsst, the influence of popper inside the "open society foundation" by George Soros, aka Schwartz, snd relative political discussions Feltribamba (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What does this mean?

I've cut and pasted a paragraph from the article below, and added questions in brackets:

Popper believed that there was a contrast between the theories of Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler, which he considered non-scientific [which one was unscientific, or both?], and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity which set off the revolution in physics in the early 20th century [this sentence needs splitting into two]. Popper thought that Einstein's theory, as a theory properly grounded in scientific thought and method, was highly "risky", in the sense that it was possible to deduce consequences from it which differed considerably from those of the then-dominant Newtonian physics; one such prediction, that gravity could deflect light, was verified by Eddington's experiments in 1919. In contrast [to what?] he thought that nothing could, even in principle, falsify psychoanalytic theories [why?]. He thus came to the conclusion that they [presumably Einstein's theory] had more in common with primitive myths than with genuine science.

The above paragraph, at least, needs re-writing. FreeFlow99 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)