Hot answers tagged

5

Usually Karl Popper is credited with having contributed to the death of logical positivism, so no, I wouldn't say Karl Popper is a logical positivist. That being said, many analytic philosophers after logical positivism still kept much of the attitude of positivism, such as logical analysis, defining ones terms, skepticism towards "grand" metaphysical ...


2

The quick and easy answer to your question is no. In fact, Popper was a critic of logical positivism. From WP on Popper: Here, he criticised psychologism, naturalism, inductivism, and logical positivism, and put forth his theory of potential falsifiability as the criterion demarcating science from non-science. Logical positivism had a number of ...


2

Popper tends to criticize, with Bacon, our tendency to demand regularity from nature. Therefore, he might have thought that induction by probability works only because we think that the laws of nature stays the same over time. This is not a correct account of Popper's views. Popper's position is that induction is impossible ("The Logic of Scientific ...


2

For Popper, either a theory reflects 'reality' (scare quotes to note how ill-defined that word is), or it does not. There is no sense talking about whether a theory is probably true; either the theory performs as expected (in which case it it true as far as we know), or the theory fails to perform as expected (in which case it is false, and we have to revise ...


1

One place to look for arguments similar to the paradox of tolerance is "slippery slope" arguments. Douglas Walton offers four identifying characteristics of slippery slope arguments: One is a first step, an action or policy being considered. A second is a sequence in which this action leads to other actions. A third is a so-called gray zone or area of ...


1

Induction Inferring present and the future states or events from past states and events - the kind of activity you appear to have in mind in your opening sentences - is a form of induction. Popper on induction is a tangled topic but, to express a standard interpretation, Popper finds no proper use for induction in science : [As an empiricist he] ...


1

I want to understand why a theory doesn't get more probably true when it is tested and succeed. I recommend that you read Colin Howson, Hume's problem: Induction and the justification of belief (Clarendon Press, Oxford 2000). Howson focuses on David Hume and induction, but discusses Karl Popper in many places. I have lost the source of this abstract, but ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible