Karl Popper´s Falsifiability Principle and the Open Society

What makes a theory truly scientific? Karl Popper believed the key is falsifiability. In his seminal work "The Logic of Scientific Discover", he illustrated this with his famous black swan example: “No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it.” Popper argued that science progresses by proposing hypotheses and then trying to disprove them through experiments.

Popper grew up in Vienna, surrounded by liberal intellectuals and influenced by the Vienna Circle, which promoted logical positivism. After publishing his book, he moved to New Zealand to escape the rise of Nazism. From there, he wrote "The Open Society and Its Enemies", which critiques the ideas of Plato, Marx, and Hegel while defending liberal democracy against totalitarianism.

Popper’s ideas, which are linked to critical rationalism and the open society concept, continue to influence science and philosophy today. He taught us that science advances not by confirming what we think we know, but by constantly testing and challenging our ideas, always seeking to uncover and correct falsehoods.

Literature:
Karl Popper (1959): The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New York, Basic Books
Popper, Karl R. (2013): The Open Society and Its Enemies, Alan Ryan

0:00 Introduction
0:48 Science as Merely Provisional Truth
02:26 Deduction instead of Induction
06:15 Open Society
07:27 Plato as an Enemy of the Open Society
10:50 Hegel and Marx as False Prophets
12:43 Positivism Dispute

[mattsolomon]

Karl Popper believed strongly in ‘tolerance’ that society should be open and tolerant to people’s differences but with one exception that society shouldn’t be tolerant of intolerance and he made a good argument for that.

[tupacca]

Thank you for making a channel that promotes thinking and growth rather than hatred and stupidity. Unfortunately, you'll have to battle the algorithm for that, but it's well worth it.

[fanstream]

Popper is considered the maestro in the field of Philosophy of Science, along with Thomas Kuhn,
I applaud you on creating a channel focused on such complex topics, ideas and thinkers, and summarizing the key points in these short videos -- also I believe you're presenting these videos in your non-native language, although your English is native fluent.

Best wishes with your channel.

[RJNL]

I mostly agree with Popper. As a scientist, I think the concept of pancritical rationalism is the best way (currently) to approach science. Essentially, based on available evidence I think [insert conclusion] is true, however, I am open to reinterpretation should new evidence arise. Although I do not think rational observation is the only way to acquire knowledge. The “eureka” moment is well establish and I think intuition is also a valid phenomenon. I think these come from processes in our brain outside of our conscious awareness. E.g. our perceptual system combines and prunes a ton of stimuli before our conscious mind even knows something is happening. There is a lot of processing that happens outside of our awareness. Our perceptual cognitive system knows more than our rational cognitive system. It’s a survival mechanism. We don’t need to ponder the nuance of the lion’s fur, teeth, claws and halitosis before we run. That it’s a threat is sufficient information.

[nword]

Came for the philosophy stayed for the pastel

[sashonr]

Thanks for this video, we need to talk about open society and against authoritarianism now more than ever.

[Infinimata]

Love this man's work; it was massively influential on my own thinking. I have a video to eventually post about THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES, as well as THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY and its various "Postscripts" (REALISM AND THE AIM OF SCIENCE, etc.)

[NielsBleeker-rt]

1: Forma
Amazing! Do not be afraid of your accent, it does not limit you. Your 'stage presence' is remarkably strong.

2: Materia
This is a great summary of his thought.
Two things that would make this even better:
1) Background: context in 'time and space' is extremely relevant in all philosophy. What are his influences direct or indirect? For example, Popper's critique of Plato, Marx and Hegel finds her source in the atrocities of the World Wars and the wide-spread discrimination, which, according to Popper, are caused by totalitarianism and the claiming of the truth.
2) Critique: Can you muster up some critical questions? Are there gaps in his thought? For example, the word 'scientia' means 'knowledge' in Latin. However, with Popper's theory, we cannot find any real knowledge, because everything stays 'tentative' or at most 'probable'. This cannot be accepted by someone looking for truth, can it?
Furthermore, can we not apply his own principle back on himself? Does the 'principle of falsifiability' withstand the test of falsifying? Does Popper not pose this principle with a certain absolute value? How can he do that? If we cannot falsify his theory, than it is not scientific and thus can be thrown away.

[ToReadersItMayConcern]

Wow, this is a refreshing presentation: densely offered and with the flow of a teacher familiar with their subject. I'm curious, how did you come to be fascinated by this topic? Did you major in philosophy, or would you consider yourself an autodidact?

I read Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies about a year ago, and you captured the essential worth from that book, the aspects that sung out most significantly by the end. Have you read any of Derek Parfit's writings? His major work of ethics, Reasons and Persons, should appeal to you, both for its density of insights and for its seriousness (so much of what appeals to me about Popper is how seriously he seems to take the problems he contends with). So often lack of seriousness—a lack of willingness to follow criticisms fully to their end—makes some modern or more popular philosophy quite frustrating.

[One note, and I hope you don't mind: at about 2:26 you describe David Hume as among the philosophers who "promoted" induction; however, David Hume specifically lays out the limits (or problems) of induction, which Karl Popper builds from. "Promotion" doesn't feel like the right word. David Hume is worth reading. I bet you'll find much of his points still relevant and fitting alongside Popper's arguments.]

[thecosmos-ltyg]

What about the following argument: If a theory has proven to be useful by making a number of accurate predictions, the theory is not discarded when it fails to make an accurate prediction in another case. What happens is, instead, that the theory becomes bounded -- the theory will not be used for the situation where it gave an inaccurate result, but will still be used where it has proven to be accurate.

[stnacld]

Thank you for this video. I think Popper’s Falsification argument is one of the most powerful linchpins of scientific inquiry. But the idea of proprietary methods and secrets in research these days makes independent verification difficult.
I’ve not thought much about Popper’s ideas about an open society (I’m showing my ignorance—now I have to go read :) ), but I am slowing reading Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari, and it has some interesting ideas about information, belief, and how the scientific enterprise differs from our story-based society. I think ultimately one can use scientific ideas to tell a better story than religion or politics, but this may point out a danger—how willing are we to discard ideas that are shown to no longer work? Ah, a tale as old as time.

[ovidiugrigorescu]

Thank you for your work.
Volume here seams very low and the titles and quotes should stay longer on the screen. (not that anybody asked me..:)..). Aside from that appreciate the effort into the rhetoric and style

[ankit]

Many of Indians like Rajiv Malhotra says Western/European Enlightenment and their modern post 15th century thoughts were nothing but re reading and re defining the Indian ancient Vedic Upanishad n vedantic scriptures in their own words and they didn't accepted that but used all of it.

[E.Cerulean]

You remind me a lot of myself. I am also a lover of books and all things pretty. I recommend reading the Quran, it quite literally changed my life. Take care !!

[doc]

Have you thought about a carreer in politics? I would vote for you.

[locheriminnenfutterderchev]

The Open Society is one of the shittiest books of all time

[alexandermoody]

Plato or Popper can either ever be absolute? Both have merit and both have limits of some position or other. Plato who seems to of been the brunt of Diogenes whit for many positions and who also had the better of a king trained by another great philosopher and this then highlights something that can never be overcome by a philosopher king in kingly regard that of disparity. I am neither professing admiration of the stoics or the cynics but there are aspects entwined within both schools of thought that deserve some form of consideration along with many other philosophical schools.

The Buddha would seem to be a interesting example with case and point if his history is true to form. Born a prince, contemplated through near total restraint to find a middle path. Without having both experiences and morality due to the experiences of the hardships that are endured by so many, no real direction towards Buddhism would of ever of been.

The problem as many kings have proved is disconnection from the majority, a void from understanding of any kind of real risk that would occur within daily lives of the people although kings do suffer risk of disposition. The fundamental fact is that all people should have some philosophical education. But that would not bolster a closed societal structure that is aristocratic based and when true meritocratic principles are proposed and social mobility drives some aspect of interaction then a societal openess may actually be far from mindless of the propositions that occur within the boundary of societal norms. Kings trying to rule as philosophical equals to any other has never been possible because of the entitlement that each is subject to. To inspire hope from within the populations of the globe has not been easy from that of position of the waving of flags and some form of pageantry that only drives an opulent wedge to split the metaphorical rock into a rough squared stone.

Whilst in some ways I have listened to Popper and felt a sense of regard I simply do not believe in democracy and I am not sure I ever actually can but what I do believe, although from the external view may seem to be that of dictatorship but I simply do not believe in dictatorship either. What I do believe is in a working wise narrator that can have the final judgement on affairs but also take view from positions of a leaning towards the majority with regard to social positioning. But do not underestimate my intent to see full transparency and as near as full participation as possible because a kind of engagement like Popper suggests drives societal changes for generally the better.

The regarding by kings of descent can easily be determined to be high treason and will always result in a very detrimental feedback loop until disposition and the use of methods to quell descent. Without difficult conversation and insightful minds not much can possibly change as we go forward from our current position. Although that written in the UK I would rather discuss the merits of monarchy over democracy in the traditional sense.

Philosophy as a subject has argued both with and without ideas from all of these considerations of thought and more for a long time. But what is within consideration is a practical value apparatus for providing a structured ground work that people can regards the judgements of as worthy of their shared values in that no need to shy away or fear embarrassment with regards to decisions made. If we do not hold a singular position vitally accountable the chances for merit to really thrive diminishes.

To move I to the literary realms of understanding the works of Huxley and Orwell where the ideas of philosophy would not be permitted within the latter and the former seeing the rise of the epsilon is a stark reminder of hyperthetical disposition of the lower to mindlessly destroy the upper without deeper seated appreciations that are permissible when philosophy is enjoyed as part of a civilisation.

Now that written, in Kantian style I would ask for critique and to be pointed towards your thoughts on philosophy.

[PanthaAhimsa]

God:
I use God in the logical sense that I think everyone means when they use it. And I do so in defiance of Popper as you can read below. To me God is the most interesting concept for analysis both a priori and in its manifestations as the most brain-warping verb to lexicalized as a noun.

Newton to Einstein:
classic dissappointed disciple radicalized by their master's defeat, turning to the 'dark side' which I propose to be as limiting as logical positivism. I'm a positive realist, as I will explain below.

The independence of theories:
I never believed this, because to me everything is connected. How could a student of Einstein (correction, a late student of Einstein) ever come to this conclusion? Positive realism asserts that by believing an element of knowledge, there is an effect on reality? Thought experiment: instead let reality contain some hidden variables which we discover by deduction, what variables contain my theory, and what effect do they have on the container? They have some, therefore there can be no hidden variables which we discovered by deduction. At best we could navigate them by design. God is the compass.

The critique of induction:
While falsifiability may have a limited conclusion and Popper may be valid here, the power of induction is to contain the world in which the scientist approaches knowledge without truth. Under the 'everything is connected' principle of positive realism, this would be a necessary step and involve a backwards cataloging (like accounting for prior model's successes) simultaneous to a phenomenal accounting of one's own numinous contribution to reality.

True until proven false:
without clarity, this gives scientists a predisposition to depravity, since truth is good and they are aquiring knowledge. Why do they need a God concept? For truth to be both external and accessible, a medium must exist to which we can tune our instruments, and from which interaction we learn which instruments to use. However the key is listening to an entity outside of oneself while making changes within it. I consider this to be the basis of the scientific revolutions of the past: deep thinking theologists interfacing with the God Complex lead to faith in inductive reasoning, and God led the way to knowledge. I could talk about a connecting principle, but the historical fact is that scientists of the past were for the most part godfearing, epistemic evidence of the power of this term. That these truths were falsifiable does not prove that falsifiability is the only tool we have to establish truth. Where does Popper base this claim? He uses Epistemology to prove epistemology-Widerspruch!

All swans are white:
I see our matter much more probabilistically, as a reflection of the inductive experience. We may see only white swans until we don't, but still the brain will acknowledge 'all swans are white' as true because many more of those experiences exist. It doesn't need to extend to all swans unless the thinker is a beligerant scientist whose god is the all quantor and not a numinous experience in the silence of his soul. A humble approach is congruent with a universe which responds to all information (i.e. the addition of logical positives). This in stark contrast--only demonstrable by belief--to one in which the truth is ascertained by separate observation. Belief in falsifiability as the basis for truth will catalogue and discover within the established territories, but to establish it as the foundation would be putting the cart before the horse. Postive realism allows for the flexibility of adjunct exceptional truths ('some swans are black' vs 'black swans died out for being maladapted.') Induction opens the door to possibilities and with God allows for both critical and holistical scientific progress.

Provisional Knowledge:
This is good for establishing models, but not for practical truth. Are scientists more moral people, or do they just conform to consensus norms and witness the tragedy of ignorance unfolding before their eyes? A thousand lesser evils make up the modern condition, none of them good. If any model is as good as another one, then we have no basis for truth. Therefore it is absurd to me that a man interested in science could put truth on top and beneath it at the same time.

There is only activity:
Classical Kantian mistake, probably with a litte Overman grease. When enough a priori functions come to rest, what do we get to experience? Die a priori Kronbestimmer überlappend mit unseren postiori persönlichen Inhalten, also wenn mit festem Nicht-Gott ohne Seiner Erbarmung, gibt es keine Kronbestimmer--mein Gott unsere Menschheit geht an ihrem festen Glaube zugrunde!

Alternative: we let go this depraved quest for the truest falsifiable and experience the positive in the absense of self, both in science (through an open society) and within. Why does meditation take so long to bear fruit? Because the silence which comes first, and only by establishing a view of the greater can the base priors reverberate the soul's activity. One must come to stillness to sense everything, and abide there to move it.

Understanding gets better over time:
A bold assertion, and one which is naive to the interconnectivity. Here we are and our physics is in tatters. Positive Realism proposes a mirror principle at work, with which when accounting for we could resolve the apparent discontinuity of our universe? Under Popper, we will never find out. With my assumption, every added theory is another psychological expression, and hardly a positive except so as to blur our minds and complicate our thoughts. I don't mean to not do science, but rather to open the doors of institutions to a universal approach, where all the ideas are on one table, without instituting truth as falsifiable. That is a categorical error, and I hope I'm holding water.

If our ethos of knowledge is not false until proven true, then we will take ourselves much too importantly before revealing the truth. Evolution would have evolved intelligences capable of preventing such creatures from surviving. Maybe they are closer to God than we are now. Maybe that intelligence is God with no loss of generality.

Open Society
What an irony: society is by nature open. It's the beligerance of the self-convinced which gives the demand for openness its meaning, since a tactic to divide and conquer is confuse and obfuscate. In doublespeak: close the doors and demand for an open society.

Government one can remove:
ideal in theory, idealistic in practice. Is anyone seriously capable of doing this in the societies arguing for open society? Let's turn Popper on his head. Why do we need government to begin with? Let's ensure government to be something humans can instantiate simply and easily at will by means of digital programs common across the world and subsequent to our global open communication lines.

Philosopher Kings:
we can disregard forms at our peril but, seeing as we have a transcendental method to achieve them, an open society wrongly presumes humankind's inability to access true knowledge by our own means. Instead this attack on Plato is an advertisement for Popper's own philosophy. Instead of accepting the rule of local leaders who have attuned themselves to our being, we are suggested to trust the process because science is the best means of achieving knowledge. He switched the function for the result and then started to build functions on top of this. Do believers in the open society accept the same values? No, they get to limit and define what does not go if it is considered non-repeatable and in error. I can get behind refusing fascists, because I believe they propagate ignorance, but not because they propagate ignorance. I'm not the arbiter of truth without assuming a God Complex, as I assert do Popperian scientists. God is necessary to make epistemology consistent with the wholeness of ontology. Heraklit trifft Parmenedies und bietet ein Eis an. Parmenedies leckt die weiche Kugel und zeigt auf seine Zunge: "Lecker!"

Popper projects himeself onto Plato, Hegel, and Marx
For the basis of projection is truth. By placing truth on both sides of science, he made it impregnable. What else is impregnable in science? An observation. Defined recursively, an observation is a state of dependence upon external sources which leads to itself divorced from reality until a base case is reached. Reality is the shifting of baselines to account for all observations and all base cases, so as to remain falsifiable without sacrificing wholeness. This was the human spirit and we remain in the darkest of dark ages unless a shared basis emerges which is both humble and valid. This will take a new epistemology which can relax the gaze of collapsing fate into 'true' theories and let the priors induct us into general understanding.