[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:

View post   
>> No.10189580 [View]
File: 202 KB, 799x487, popper1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10189580

Is there a philosopher who wrote more clearly?

>> No.6091016 [View]
File: 202 KB, 799x487, popper1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6091016

>>6091009
I don't think it is possible to overstate his accomplishments.
Zizek's Marxism is unfalsifiable.

>> No.5995807 [View]
File: 202 KB, 799x487, popper1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5995807

>>5995753
route in philosophy to reach knowledge
>Democritus
>Plato
>Rationalists (Leibniz, Descartes, Spinoza)
>Empiricists (Hume, Locke, Berkeley)
>Frege
>Russell
>Moore
>Wittgenstein
>Logical Positivists
>Popper and Lakatos
>Quine
>Putnam

Everything else is arbitrary.

>> No.5921243 [View]
File: 202 KB, 799x487, popper1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5921243

>>5921221
So how do justify probability induction? You still seem to be making the same kind of assumption that you are critical of Popper for doing.
You have decided what counts as a scientific theory but you can't use the scientific method to justify your belief so it is unscientific.

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]