Karl Popper - Science: Conjectures and Refutations - Sections I and II

Popper's article "Science: Conjectures and Refutations" is based on a 1953 lecture and was published as part of his 1963 book "Conjectures and Refutations". In it, Popper describes his own intellectual development and two of his most famous ideas: the falsificationist theory of science and his solution to the problem of induction. This video looks at the most well-known part of the article, the first two sections on falsificationism.

[vasilislemon]

Excellent presenation professor Gijsbers! The series on Kant's critique of pure reason was impeccable, i hope this one would be of the same value.. go on!!

[ShahulHameed-nfwz]

I am a layman, your presentation I stunned no words to add.

[gotaro]

Your presentation is fascinating
I say that because my attention span is short so I couldn't believe how i managed to see through all the video
Thanks Prof. Gijsbers!

[climatedamage]

Thanks a lot for a clear and knowledgeable explanation.

[MRT-cosd]

You and I have a very different understanding of Popper.

[dot]

God you have a great professor voice ❤️

[NNCCCC]

take a cue from the venerable Graham Oppy - he appears online with an empty bookshelf behind him, ... or populated only with children's board games.

[maxheadrom]

33:20 An example is the introduction of an imaterial medium to carry electromagnetic waves. Then someone observed that if there was such a medium then Dopler Effect should be observed. Morley, using an apparatus designed by Michelson, tried to prove that medium existence - and failed. The proponents of the Aether's existence then claimed that it was impossible to measure because the medium deformed objects causing the Michelson apparatus to not beeing capable of detecting it.

Morley never gave up - he was a good experimentalist and didn't buy into the deformation idea. He started in the 19th century trying to prove Maxwell's assertion that electromagnetic waves used space itself as a medium. He spent his whole life refining the experiment and, in the end, made not only Maxwell's idea stronger but also Einstein's Relativity.

[PeterFallenius]

“All models are wrong… but some are useful…”
- George Box

To get great use out of any model, no matter how potentially useful, understanding the limitations, and the weaknesses of the model would seem to be crucial…

[Bob-wxop]

Hi, Professor Gijsbers. I have questions not so relevant to this video: Is current paradigm of quantum physics overall (e.g., the Standard Model) incommensurable to the paradigm of classical physics (e.g., general relativity)? I am not familiar with modern physics but heard that many physicists now disagree Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Does the overall progress in physical science from 1970s to now seem to fit with Kuhn’s claim?

[maxheadrom]

They say "space-time" bends and assume everybody knows what space-time is. It's not my field either (I studied engineering) but I can try to shed some light - haha - on the light bending thing. An implication of General Relativity is that time passes differently in different places because mass affects time therefore time if a function of space and that makes what is called time-space. The speed of light is constant therefore when it gets near the Sun the path it has to follow is the one that keeps the speed constant. Speed is the distance traveled in some time and a straight line used to be the quickest path but now if I take some path, time might be faster and the amount of time would be greater. Well ... it's something like that but I have a feeling it's easier to understand like this than saying that a four-dimensional space get curved by mass. (btw, it doesn't need to be a large amount of mass - grains of dust in space also do that otherwise there would be not stars since that is gravity).

Now I'll rewind and rewatch the parts I missed! Thanks, btw, Prof. Gijsbers.

[benorson]

Hi Victor. I hope you receive this well.
I have a Popper question and no one seems to have a an answer for me.
I want to know if Ai and big Data fly in the face of Popper problem with Historicism? I cringe every time I hear people talk about making PREDICTIONS with big data. Is this something other Popper enthusiasts have thought about?

[drewzi]

The criticism you have of the first point should have more context and background.

You say that confirmations that are easy to obtain don’t raise the probability of the statement.

Popper wrote an entire chapter and many appendices explaining why this response was totally evasive, since no confirmationist stance that employed logical probability or evidential probability ever got close to explaining how this process worked.

[bygabop]

“Scientific theories are modelled approximately by propositional statements, but they are exactly explanations.”

[jimmypk]

Super Ego is Serotonin driven, while Id thrives on Dopamine. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Neurobiology could shed some light on it?

[MalkuthEmperor]

Insofar as the examples in this video reguarding both Marx ans freoud, i dont really see how that was even a glimmer of a representation of what Marxism even is, let alone for it to disprove some element of marx.
( and you already cleared p Freouds name, but for some unapoarent reason left out marx as if he didnt exist, even tho he was clearly misrepresented as " just a wrong guy")

He is just an economist, pholosopher and critic of capitalism, and so in order to disprove a theory of his, at the very least a theory of his needs to be presented first 😂

And this thing about a viewer watching 2 different politicians on TV and making a value judgement on whether they are good or bad, which for anyone who has actually read Marx, will realise that there is no such emphasise put on this abuility to judge if someone is good. Hell, there is not even a claim by marx that if you take marxism you can judge who is good and who is bad by listening to them on TV
Marxism is in that reguard about analising who holds power in society, and who has the means of production, who creates value in society, how to organise society, how capitalism organises society.
And thease theories can to be applied onto every single thong and be correct because they describe very specific phenomenon.
He might not be always right ( which he isnt, and franky, idk what kind of standard Popper has here.
" whats this, Marx is just too wirght about litterally every single thing...which must mean that he's wrong" 😂

I get what he means, but like how bout an actualnexample of when he is always rught about something insteadnof allowing us to imagine some hypotheticals which marx never even talked about as such.

Like, Popper can think and all, and he has some great ideas, and thank god he isnt always right, otherwise he would be wrong, but he sure either had some political agenda for targeting Freud and Marx specifically, and then not offering evidence, or maybe he just didnt understand their theories which is also possible, (but not as likely in my subjective opinion )

And as the dude in the vid said " Froud disproved his own theories over time, and so did Marx.

Anyway, have a good day.

[TitsMcGee-cv]

I think wikipedia's page for this book has a better summary than this guy's. The whole premise of the book is to differentiate between a proper scientific method and a non or quasi science. Given this:
1) what justice was popper supposed to do to Freud and his theories. Psychoanalisys was not a science.
1.1) you say that popper's example to refute the scientific nature of psychonalyses was "completely made up", yet you admit that you know very little about freud and his work. Popper criticism of psychoanalysis is based on freud's work (i.e., interpretations of dreams, theory of resistance are just some of them).

2. History is not a science. They use, only sometimes, a scientific tool (to measure how old something is) but rest is just a description or explanation of the past. Grant it: a description is more scientific than a description.

[damianbylightning]

The criticisms of Popper are the usual pap and nonsense. I was hoping for a better explanation.
There has been a lot of academic effort to undermine Popper's theory. This is because he did take on two pseuds that were absolute giants - Marxism and Freudianism. This led to the bloated and still powerful anti-Popper industry - as much of academia and public policy was based on these two pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific absurdities.
Popper has stood up well to the criticism - and stands all the better when the criticisms are explained as badly as they are in this video.
Also, he should have pointed out the many Nietzschean roots of Freud. It makes it easier for students to see the tosh that was once claimed for Freud. No one is going to take a scientific application of Nietzsche seriously.
Finally, history is not science. We can apply science to something - but that's thing's not science. History, the 'Queen of sciences' even fails to make it into the ranks of applied science.