Karl Popper | Conjectures and Refutations | What is science? |Philosophers Explained | Stephen Hicks

In this 1962 book, Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper (1902-1994) discusses the nature of science, pseudoscience, scientific confirmation and his theory of falsification.
A copy of the reading can be found here: www.stephenhicks.org/wp-conte...
Timestamps:
00:29 The text
02:43 What is science? Is it content? Method? Mindset?
05:12 Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience
07:12 Empirical vs. non-empirical methods
08:35 A positive example: Einstein's theory of relativity
09:00 Marx, Freud and Adler
10:14 Einstein's theory of relativity
12:40 Marx, Freud and Adler
14:00 Explanatory Power
15:12 Conversion or revelation
18:06 Easy confirmation
21:10 Falsification-putting things to the test
24:30 Popper's scientific checklist
24:52 1. It is easy to find confirmation if that is what we look for
25:29 2. Make risky predictions
26:27 3. Good scientific theories are a prohibition
27:11 4. Non-refutable theories are not scientific
28:09 5. Tests should be attempts to falsify the theory
28:40 6. Confirming evidence should not count
29:36 7. Ad hoc auxiliary assumptions are evidence of a failed theory
31:11 Falsifiability, refutability and testability
31:30 Revisiting theories of the past
32:20 David Hume
34:09 Immanuel Kant
Philosophers, Explained covers major philosophers and texts, especially the great classics. In each episode, Professor Hicks discusses an important work, doing a close reading that lasts 40 minutes to an hour.
The playlist of current videos can found here: • Philosophers Explained
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Other episodes in the series include: Jacques Derrida on Insanity versus Reason Ayn Rand on Individual Rights Michel Foucault on Power and Sexuality Francis Bacon on the New Philosophy and Science

[@johnbrown4568]

Popper was indeed a serious and important thinker in the 20th century, particularly in regards to his thoughtful considerations of the nature of genuine scientific inquiry.

[@synon9m]

this is great. I hope professor Hicks covers Feyerabend next.

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

This is probably my favorite episode of Philosophers Explained so far, because it encapsulates several philosophers and topics I find interesting. The main topic makes me think of Benjamin Boyce's latest episode with Ed Dutton. Boyce's channel is one of my favorites, Professor Hicks has been a guest. Dutton is a somewhat controversial individual with whom I tend to at least somewhat disagree, however I would compare him to Charles Murray as someone who happens to be Conservative, and does important work in a similar subject area. I've learned a lot from Dutton's channel. I look forward to Hicks's forthcoming work, that James Lindsay mentioned on his podcast, which apparently will be a defense of Liberalism that incorporates the latest scientific findings. This defense, is of course relevant to the main topic of this video. (Testing and updating theories properly, and perhaps philosophies by extension). Personally, I think that Liberalism still entails the best type of governance, though some of its claims don't hold up if interpreted literally, and I also think empiricism generally, is the most importantly emphasized mode of thought processes, even though it's now essentially shown to be only one 'mode,' that's often 'drowned out'. On the defense of Liberalism as a practically advantageous system, this is where the work of someone like Dutton enters the picture, in ostensible contrast. In spite of admirable, optimistic claims to individual liberty, we now know to a certain extent, that shared group traits and genetic similarity are likely the most important factors for social cohesion, and intelligence metrics also denote an immovable, important determinant of the capacity for constructive societal engagement and/or thought processes. Albeit a noble sentiment that should not be discarded in my opinion, nevertheless all men (it's now clear) are not "created equal," the blank slate furthermore, has long been disproven. We're dealing now, with the foundations of liberal society, as mostly a set of adaptive categorizations for legal purposes, which is important, though it doesn't precisely reflect scientific/biological reality. Can Professor Hicks successfully update and defend Liberalism, and empiricism to some extent in the process, in a good faith, albeit somewhat "ad hoc" manner? James Lindsay, myself and others, are on the edge of our seats!

[@thunkjunk]

Please do a deep dive into Popper and Phil of science. I loved this.

[@adamthemyth]

Stephen: do you think it would be possible to have a discussion with Cuck Philosophy over your points of contention? Maybe you could get the Triggernometry guys to host it?

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

Hicks's Triggernometry debate with Orr was excellent, and way underviewed.

[@TheNjsb]

Marx is like reverse alchemy: turning base metals into genocide