Official Karl Popper Fanboy Thread

[Michael]

My name is Michael and I am a Karl Popper fanboy. :)

I consider him to be certainly one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century and probably the one who has had the largest influence upon my own intellectual development. (Charles Taylor would be my other big 'seminal' influence)

The more I read about him and his work, the more impressed I become. I was introduced to his later works first and have been working backwards through his earlier work.

Popper's theory of science has been very influential to me on the issue of epistemology. I consider Popper's assertion of a demarcation between 'science' and 'non-science' with falsifibility as the criteria to be highly productive in the advance of rational thought.

Of course, I break with Popper only when he conflicts with Hume. A skeptic I am and must remain. I just don't see why truth "must" exist. Ergo, I'm skeptical. Seems rational enough to me.

So, the question is, am I the only Karl Popper Fan here at DWF? Can I try to convert anyone?

Here's a good summary of the significance of Karl Popper... (one of the very best public resources on the net) the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

That's an excellent article on Popper I think. Tough guy to fit into a couple dozen paragraphs. :)

[SMadsen]

Well, I'm a Michael fanboy so I guess I'm also a Popper fanboy :)

Honestly, my knowledge of Popper is limited to the requirements of falsifiability that I find amusing to throw in the face of creationists.

[Michael]

Well, I'm a Michael fanboy so I guess I'm also a Popper fanboy :)
I am honored. :angel:

Honestly, my knowledge of Popper is limited to the requirements of falsifiability that I find amusing to throw in the face of creationists.
Yes, that argument truly is a 'show-stopper' in that context. :D

Another idea of Popper's that I find intriguing is his approach to the 'truth vs relativism' problem of knowledge with what I call the principle of negative knowledge.

That is to say, because of relativism, we can't actually know that a given theory is actually or ultimately true, but we can claim to know that every attempt to falsify it has failed. This constitutes a substantive claim of knowledge that can be verified - though this certainly is not a claim of absolute knowledge. This strikes me as fertile ground for further thought.

[drgoodtrips]

I agree that the concept of falsifiability is one of paramount importance. I read the link back when you posted it, but don't remember very well, so I should probably glance back through it.