Karl Popper's Falsification
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ส.ค. 2015
- Science is based on fact. Isn't it? Karl Popper believed that human knowledge progresses through 'falsification'. A theory or idea shouldn't be described as scientific unless it could, in principle, be proven false.
Narrated by Aidan Turner. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
From the BBC Radio 4 series about life's big questions - A History of Ideas.
This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive. - ตลก
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 63 | คู่เอก "ยอดภูผา vs โซเนอร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RGVmBsegKEI/mqdefault.jpg)
![คบซ้อน - วงL.กฮ. [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5MtesqJ0I1c/mqdefault.jpg)
As a current Honours Arts student who has been exposed to alot of other social science and political students too entrenched in their ideologies, I think it is really necessary for Philosophy of Science to be taught in the curriculum. It is very easy to be selective about evidence and interpreting the world through your own ideological perspective. Social science students need to learn some Popper.
+M3Lucky You have a good point. Many disciplines do not teach the principles of the scientific method causing many of the students to grow up indoctrinated in limiting understandings of their world. The values of the scientific method should underpin all teachings for any kind of student in any program. It's like meta-learning. It is learning about how to be a good learner and thinker. It's like teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish.
You guys are exactly the kind of people that I dream of chatting with, all dressed in fancy Tartan Plaid three piece suits smoking a pipe and drinking Scotch whiskey, listening to classical music, sitting by the fireplace in a personal library inside a huge fancy mansion...
They could also do to learn a bit about the problem of induction at the same time.
NothingIsSacred
Yes, I majored in Sociology and the way it was taught in my experience was highly intuitive but not systematic in analyzing the validity of theories. Sociology can be very theoretical and explicitly traverses into the domain of philosophy at times. However, when these highly theoretical concepts are taught, they are not taught with the same philosophical rigour or systematic scientific analysis. I have heard of philosophers criticising social scientists/theorists for all too easily being persuaded to agree with various social theoretical paradigms such as Critical Theory and various PostModern theories.
I know what you mean. Those students are fucking insane.
Excellent introduction to Karl Popper's Falsification Theory
Beautifully presented. Thanks!
A good read is 'The Limits of Reason' overview of the shebang and hebang. Also, going back a few decades 'Science is a Sacred Cow.' Moo.
Karl Popper is hands down one of the greatest intellectual giants who turned upside down the way people view and experience things
Why ?
He really isn't, most philosophers don't take him very seriously.
Popper is very inconsistent with his wording, and his arguments are largely incoherent. He starts with the goal to "debunk Marxism" which is based on the belief that you can learn from history, and make predictions into the future. Popper calls this "historicism" which he defines as, "an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their primary aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the 'rhythms' or the 'patterns', the 'laws' or the 'trends' that underlie the evolution of history." This is the core of the Marxist analysis, which Popper tries to debunk.
Do you honestly believe it's impossible or irrational to study the historical record and find pattern or trends to try and inform future policy? Honestly? By this logic, we should deny climate change, because we have to study climate history to see the trend that CO2 is linked to global warnings. We also have to deny evolution by natural selection, because this was only discovered by examining the fossil record.
The amount of mental gymnastics Popper does to debunk learning from history is impressive. Throughout his work, he constantly adds onto things to "historicism" which were not part of the definition he started with. For example, despite him including "patterns" and "trends" in his definition, throughout much of his work he forgets that even exists and starts accusing Marxists of only believing in "universal laws" which are independent of historical context, and criticizes this as being unfalsifiable because we can't test something claimed to be "universal". Marx was clear that his ideas were not meant to be taken as such, but Popper relies on attacking the works of other Marxists and politicians, who he did not like, rather than actually staying on topic and debunking historicism itself.
He does a similar thing with his claim about Marxists not accepting falsifiable hypotheses and just updating in a post-hoc fashion rather than truly learning from their incorrect predictions, as discussed in the video. But the question then becomes obvious. If some Marxists were talking about "universal laws," and some Marxists were not updating their theories appropriately based on the evidence, then why not just criticize their methodology, and insist they use better methodology? Why can't the solution be for Marxists just to have more specific and falsifiable theories?
Popper does not draw this conclusion that Marxists should improve their methods. Rather, after arbitrarily attaching on several different things to the definition of "historicism" based on people he didn't like, Popper then suddenly declares that historicism is debunked, even though he hardly even addresses the definition he started with. If historicism is debunked, then Marxism cannot be revised, it's unsalvagable and has to be entirely abandoned, it could not use better methodology. It's clear he sets out with the goal of proving it's impossible to learn from history with the explicit purpose of "debunking Marxism" because of some Marxists he didn't like, and was never interested in engaging with the philosophy very seriously.
Even Popper's own "falsification" is, hilariously, just a reformulation of Hegel, yet he also claims to have "debunked Hegel." Ideas do not develop unless they are contradicted, unless they are falsified. That is Hegel. A lot of Popper's writings are just oversimplifying a lot of really old ideas and pretending they're new ideas, pretending to be a philosopher so that he can declare learning form history is impossible. He had a specific political agenda made clear in Open Society. If the government believes it can learn from history to know how to better manage society, then that might lead to, you know, the management of society. But Popper wanted society to be unmanaged, live-and-let-live, free market, laissez-faire, etc. So he plays all these word games reach that conclusion.
This is sadly a plague in academia. Popper is ultimately one of the many anti-intellectuals who start with the assumption of unlimited individual freedom being morally good and desirable, and thus, he has to discourage people from wanting to learn from history out of fear of people wanting to use this information to implement regulations on society.
@@amihart9269
Hmm.. yet is by scientists, even neo-Marxist ones.
I think you miss the epistemiological difference between Marxism and climate change or natural selection. There is demarcation because those include falsifiable theory in their framework, and marxism doesn't.
Global warming is founded on theory rather than extrapolation of trends. Without it the trend is only correlation not causation and that's a problem we all know, linked to the problem of induction.
Theories of climate change can falsifiably predict because they are derived from chemistry and physics theories as well as using a priori logic to make a deduction that can be tested.
Marx ultimately doesn't provide such ways to test his predictions. Although I may not agree with Poppers claim to dismiss it or his political views.
An important factor of pseudoscience is not ONLY falsifiability, but claims of certainty/scientific process where they are not there. Doesn't he accept something as potentially meaningful if it accepts its own degree of fallibility?
@@amihart92691st off, i love your coment, it really outlines many of the problems that popper has frok my understanding of him as well.
Tho admitedly my understanding of popper is less than yours.
On the surface tho. By this definition of "historicism" i think that we can easly prove that the debunking just doesent work even by the most dimple standards.
1. Can anyone name one example of human life which does not depend on some form of "historicism".
- the reason we go to work now is because we know that the last time we have went to work, we receaved a salary, and thereby we predict that the same thing will happen in the future.
Even the simple act of drinking, and then taking a piss shows us the fact that it might even be impossible to base out assumptions on anything except for the past.
Even in practical science, the point is to discover how a cirtain set of phisical laws work, in order to then by our past experiments be able to conclude what predictable outcome woll occur in the future.
So if i understand his idea propperly than what his claim would imply is that there is no way to reasonably predict with any kind of accuracy litterally anything , and if we take this to be a theroy, then how can we even derive any kind of concept for what we should do in a society in our lives.
Idk if im getting this wrong so please correct me, because i feels like he is trying to disprove the idea of "the past" itself as a general category from which we can derive predictions for the future .
I will add more later since i have to run now, but i would love to hear your thoughts on what ive said so far, because i might be misconstruing the concept and i want to doublt check with someone else.
Have a good day
And in the most simplest way it was right in front of our face this whole time.
Really great video, illustrations were fabulous.
This confirmation bias and pseudoscientific thinking is a huge issue in the area of sociology. And I'm absolutely shocked that no one ever addresses it. It's like the entire field and the academia around it is blind. It's almost like a cult.
Many of them are cultists, members of secular religions.
Anyone knows about "A license to make TV"? Its an essay by Karl Popper. He also co-wrote a book with John Condry and Karol Wojtyla which should bare the title "Television, a bad teacher" or "Television, a danger to democracy" but there is no trace of that in English anywhere online. I found translations in French, Italian and Spanish under the names like, "Televisão: Um Perigo Para A Democracia", "La televisione cattiva maestra" or "Cattiva maestra televisione" but surprisingly there's no English. Any hints?
Good stuff! Keep them coming :)
Braulio Salcedo, did you know this dude at the picture did narrate the series?
Link to pic: www.cornwalltoday.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BBC-AIDAN-6177520-high_res-poldark.jpeg
If only they showed this to us back at A-level! It explains this far more clearly than my teacher ever did. It probably helped that it was Aidan Turner that explained it...
I’m in a level now and they showed me this video :)
Loved! Thank you!
That’s a good point I didn’t realize that the workers rebellion was un-falsifiable
Converts from one position to one radically different always arouse my suspicions.
I despise them.. so what does that say about me?
They're not converts then, they saw the evidence and changed their mind.
@@nichoudha That's literally called converting.
this is such a good video.
So succinct and short
@John Jordan do elaborate
Another wonderful educational channel on you tube ... Knowledge is flowing like a river everywhere ....blessed to live in this internet age
SuperBooboohaha Welp....
Knowledge has led us to the almost Unbelievable Fact, that the Earth is NOT a Globe, that Water always finds its Level, and must be Contained...
SuperBooboohaha Here is a,Link to help you on your SCIENTIFIC Journey
th-cam.com/video/lU0VVFoJ5pI/w-d-xo.html
Nope. It's more like a large ocean with very small islands of truth and beauty but mostly vast seas of nonsense, terrible nonsense. One either needs a trained sailor to lead one to the "nice" spots, or one must become a trained sailor oneself. Then it can be great.
Interestingly enough I believe that this could be like it always has been. Knowledge is out there and the ones who struggle for it will find it climb the ladder and find more knowledge, and as a result of that; power and wealth, which will give more power and wealth (if they keep on struggling and dont rest on the laurels). The wast majority of any species do not do this (im guessing) so there is the emergence of a "class-pyramid" of some sort.. Is this inevitable by nature?
This series is so enlightening. Keep it up ;)
Matheus Hoscheidt, This dude did narrate the series.
Link to pic: www.cornwalltoday.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/BBC-AIDAN-6177520-high_res-poldark.jpeg
Great summary vid.
What an excellent and concise video!
good explanation! thanks!
Science before Popper was never characterised as starting with Hypotheses. It was inducitivist which means that it started with data and then extrapolates from data to Hypotheses.
whats wrong with doing that ?
See Hume's refutation of induction. There would be nothing wrong with it, if it was possible. Hume showed that it is necessarily contradictory. Many people in the early 19th and 20th century tried to refute him and failed, now they just ignore it, and pretend like he is wrong without finding fault with his argument.
Inductionism is based on a misunderstanding. You wouldn't even know what you should observe or what counts as an observation if you didn't allready have a general theoretical framework. All observations are theory laiden as Popper put it.
@@Amalgafiend making a statement from induction is fine if:
You make it with no claim of verification and certainty, just for arguments sake. You would end up with many of these uncertain arguments and cannot possibly do the contradiction of calling them simultaneously true. The certainty is not a probablistic trend because there is no confirming or testing of those (turkeys and farmers, the measurement problem ETC.), but rather might have a statement on whether the argument is probable...um, again this relies on application of various theories, probability theory included. Induction is solved by using deduction?
Science is a method of evaluating evidence and there can always be more evidence - so science can't and doesn't "prove" things. Which is good because outside of the context of math and logic, "proof" is subjective and it simply means "I like my current position too much to think about it any more".
Good point. Science is a falsification process and that which can't be falsified is considered the best truth candidate, but its still not proof that its "true". However, truth is contextual, its that which satisfies the demand for infallibility for the context in question.
@@w.harrison7277 a contextual truth is garbage. Truth comes from math, logic, or emotion only. The emotion component is garbage. 1+1=2 is true regardless of context.
@@w.harrison7277In the context of you’re using, ‘truth’ is just a word and means opinion or world view, not fact.
@@oversquare6625Agreed. But so much is propped up by postmodernism and Marxism in the humanities. It really put me off and was why I only have studied philosophy and history and avoided literature and sociology/ psychology. And even at that the college system tries to force view down your throat.
Totally love this. Upsc aspirant
At 0:53 I thought my mans was about to hit that pipe
Thanks for this great video ! Iv been sharing it a lot. People just dont get what the scientific perspective is - they treat it more as a religion unfortunately. I think its a matter of whether you are walking around with a question (?) or exclamation (!) mark in your mind. Science is both but fundamentally more of the former (unlike engineering of more applied subjects of scientific inquiry)
Very beautiful animation.
I want this Presentation for Personal Use 🙂, please provide me if you can ....
False consciousness is ad hoc.
Thankyooooooou! Saved me
This idea of falsifiablity was a refreshing one, and it produces some implications that tie in with what we can observe about the progress of scientific methodology. We can even apply ot usefully in daily life.
Suppose that I go into the kitchen and turn on the light switch, but instead of the light coming on as usual, nothing happens.
Most of us, me included, would probably try to change the light bulb and try the switch again. If the light comes on, the problem is solved, and dinner plans can continue.
But what really happened here? We ASSUMED that the bulb had failed, and after conducting the EXPERIMENT of replacing it, we CONCLUDED that we had correctly identified and fixed the problem.
Popper points out that NONE OF THIS METHOD WAS SCIENTIFIC. Yes, we've come away happy, but we may have gained a completely false understanding. The old light bulb may be perfectly fine, and now we're throwing it into the garbage!
Okay, so, "the light bulb isn't going on because the bulb is burned out" is a valid hypothesis. Why? Because it's falsifiable. But replacing it only shows that the new bulb works. It doesn't show that the old one is necessarily bad.
There's a missing piece, and it's critical. We'd have to put the old bulb back into the circuit, to show that it doesn't work even in what we now have verified (using the new bulb) is a good circuit.
See, there are other possibilities for why a light bulb might not come on. The power could be out. The wire could be broken. The switch could have failed. You could be flipping the wrong switch. Somebody could have drugged you.
Popper's insight was first, to see that all these alternatives have to be considered and possibly tested. But second, it's that under a regime of falsification, we're AT BEST left with one hypothesis standing.
And we might not have that. We could end up with multiple possibilities, unable to choose between them. Or we could end up eliminating all known possible explanations, a condition which has come to be called the Null Hypothesis. Then all we can honestly say is "we don't know." (But at least we know why we don't know, so it's progress of a kind.)
And third, that eliminating all the known competitors does not make the remaining hypothesis correct! It just makes it our best guess so far. New data may come in at any time to call it into question.
So, putting all of this together, what we have is, by construction, that scientific conclusions are always tentative. Whenever we REASON BY INDUCTION, from factual observations to some abstract principle, we're eliminating hypotheses which don't hold up to experiment in favor of those which do. We'll usually never get those excluded hypotheses back on the table.
But the door is always open to new ideas and new data, so WE NEVER ARRIVE AT ABSOLUTE TRUTH. There is no such thing, in any model of reality that we could ever construct. Our models are, necessarily, simplifications, and thus we always risk leaving something important out.
We kind of circumstantially knew this all along, but Popper dissected the process of investigation and showed how it must be this way. Verification, as when replacing the light bulb, may well be good enough for getting on with life. But if you are serious about approaching objective truth, your best path is falsification, and that only gets you so far.
If you really want absolute truth, you have to invoke axiomatic systems such as mathematics.
Science do not look for confirmation, rater it looks after refutation of its own theories.
Every falsification is also a confirmation of the inverse of the hypothesis.
@@amihart9269 nope. You can't verify truths by refuting the negative! You can't verify truths... end of! Even mathematics can't do that (thanks, Godel)
The only way to do that would be to come up with /all possible hypotheses/ but even then, how do you confirm the knowability of the winning one?
What rather happens, is not that the winning hypothesis is 'verified' but its taken as 'the best theory we have at the moment' and nothing more.
Well said@@jorriffhdhtrsegg
@@jorriffhdhtrseggin other words, as popper put it, such a theory would be considered "corroborated"
When I first heard about the falsification theory of Karl Popper, I thought this is like the Lean Start up phenomena
isnt that just stress test? Doesnt falsification mean that we are trying to deceive someone by changing something?
So just what do you do with a concept like determinism?
It's like looking in a crystal ball, isn't it?
Popper wasn't a determinist, he believed it was literally impossible to ever learn from history, like, he defines "historicism" quite literally in his book as trying to find "patterns" and "trends" in history to predict the future and the entire book, _Poverty of Historicism,_ is dedicated to debunking such a notion. Popper genuinely did not believe it was ever possible to know anything about the future from studying the past.
This is Gold
grazie
Never had
Falsification isn't about just testing and finding if there is any evidence against the hypothesis, for a theory to be valid logically, it only has to be falsifiable in theory (it must be something imaginable that could prove the hypothesis wrong) otherwise it can't be refuted, just the imagination of a logical counter-argument would be enough for the theory to be falsifiable, refutable and therefore potentially valid. Propositions like "God exists" or "God created the world" are not falsifiable, there can't be any argument imagined that could refute the theory.
+Raul Popa If falsificationism states that "any valid theory needs to be at least in principle falsifiable, then is it possible to refute falsificationism? No, because if we were to find a theory that posited something that was logically impossible to disprove but was still true, then it would still be an invalid theory from the perspective of functionalism. Therefore it is, even in theory, impossible to refute falsificationism. This means that falsificationism, by its own logic, is invalid.
+Raul Popa Therefore, propositions like "God exists" or "God created the world" are not even scientific theories.
+TheSuperninja10 Can you posit something that is logically impossible to disprove, but is still "true", at least scientifically?
Every scientific "truth", no matter how grounded in evidence it is, can be given a situation where it is logically falsifiable.
Your objection is absurd, sir. We are talking about scientific epistemology here, not pseudo-science wackado.
+TheSuperninja10 "Therefore it is, even in theory, impossible to refute falsificationism. This means that falsificationism, by its own logic, is invalid."
False on two accounts. Validity is about logical consequence, and all refutations require is a possible modus tollens, therefore falsificationism lives up to its own standards, because it is criticizable. Second Falsificationism is not an empirical theory about the world; it is an attempt to separate what is empirical from what is not. Therefore all you have pointed out then, in your conclusion, is that falsificationism is not science, and that is of course correct, because it is a philosophical and logical analysis of science. Its pretty simple - if it is not falsifiable, then it is not science.
Falsificationism is not falsifiable, therefore it is not science. Therefore, It correctly categorises itself as not an empirical theory. Good,
that is how it should be
Where do you apply falsifiability when peoples are oppressed till they die?
Nice straw man, M8.
@@keyboardcorrector2340 It's not a straw man, Popper wrote an entire book trying to debunk "historicism" which he literally defines as the belief you can learn "patterns" and "trends" from history in order to make predictions into the future. It's just an anti-intellectual slogan to tell people it's somehow impossible to learn about the future, because he was a neoliberal that didn't want governments to try and implement policies based on socioeconomics studies to improve society.
اسطورة الاطار ( كارل بوبر ).
يتكلم عالم اللغة (ورف ) و يردد معه بوبر عن سجن اللغة او عن سجن عقلي من نوع ما ، سجن صنعته القواعد البنائية للغتنا ، و الواقع غير ذلك تماما ، اللغة طريقة وجود الواقع و خروج من السجن الى الطبيعة و الى الاخر ، اللغة مشتركة و تجربة انسانية و السجن هنا تجاهل للانسان كواقع في سبيل واقع لا يشترك مع الانسان و لا مع الاخر و التعبير بلغة مختلفة عن شيء واحد من طبيعة اللغة و ليس او لا علاقة له بالحدث و الفعل احيانا :
بدأ بيير قطع الاشجار او
بيير بدأ يقطع الأشجار
التقديم و التاخير بلاغي اكثر الأحيان و هنآك جمل كثيرة لا تصف الفعل و لا يختلف المعنى بشيء سوى في الصدى الذي تحدثه اللغة في النفس و رموزها الإجتماعية لدى المتلقي و مدى قوة التاثير و كلام كواين عن النسبية الانطواوجية للغة و عن عدم القابلية لبعض العبارات للترجمة تجاهل للتجارب الذاتية التي تشرح لماذا هذه الكلمة لا تحمل ما تحمله تلك الكلمة، حياة اللغة هنا غير حياة اللغة هناك ؛ قالت لابيها : ما أجمل السماء فرد ابو الاسود الدؤلي: نجومها فقالت لابيها اردت التعجب فقال لها ابوها :
ما اجمل السماء (بفتح الهمزة )...
تابع
٠٦/٠٦/٢١
Karl Popper said the same thing about Freud and his theories, that's why today both political sciences and psicology are considered social sciences (the new pseudo-sciences) and not natural/exact sciences... I would have loved this video if it ended by calling psychoanalysis pseudo-sciences! XD That would be a honest job and the comments would be amazing....
A psychological theory proposed by Roy Baumeister that claimed self-control is a limited resource was falsified, as such psychology can be scientific.
@@driveasandwich6734 oh just stop the BS. Psychology will never be a science!
Freud was an essayists at best by modern standards and there is plenty of more empirical psychology happening today that wasn’t happening 100 years ago.
Modern psychology is pseudoscience but I wouldn't say it can't become a science. A couple critical things are missing: 1) all emotion is a measure of capital gains and losses for the mammal. and 2) all psychology is capital acquisition and defense. So they don't even have the basic biology and energy management down yet. @@nostalgia9338
Geez, that strayed from "how can i know anything at all" didnt it.
🤣
I had that Karl Popper in the back of the cab once....
And if the reality is trhu ,popper is going to say that is psedo-reality that is destroy psedo.siance?
What popper got wrong was assuming marx's position was the hypothesis.
His position was the centered around the black swan in the hypothesis "capitalism is a meritocracy" ...
Or rather evidence for the null hypothesis of this hypothesis.
I think Marx's theory of history is indeed unfalsifiable.
Incorrect. Popper made no such assumption.
@Nuclear Confusion you're not just confused about nuclear, but science too. Read some more of his work before you blabber on such nonsense. "falsification is mere result-based analysis", what horseshit. You couldn't get anywhere in the world without falsificationism in everything you do.
The biggest thing Popper got wrong is that he doesn't even attack Marx, but some Marxists he had beef with, and then draws the wild conclusion that learning from history is entirely impossible. It's just an enormous leap of logic to criticize the methodology of a few Marxists and then use it not only to claim Marxism is unsalvageable but to declare that it is literally impossible to learn anything from history. I don't get how people take it that seriously, or well, I do, actually, it's because of the political agenda. Popper was obsessed with debunking the idea that you can learn from history because he was worried people studying history would try to use that study to then control society, and he was a neoliberal believing in laissez-faire economics.
Can I please request that Aidan Turner narrate the majority of these videos? . . .sigh . . . another sigh
Can sumone summarize what is falsification in one sec.
+sunnyman voy Evidence that a theory is wrong.The theory A is falsified if there's an evidence that not-A. For example the theory "All swans are white" is true until it is falsified by observing a non white swan (black swan)
charmlessman cool!
@@serjordie If there are 2 swans, it is science, because "all swans are white" is falsifiable. If you look at the first swan and it is white, it is even more scientific. If you look at the second swan and it's white, there no longer is any data left to ever hope to falsify "all swans are white," so it becomes unfalsifiable and thus the statement ceases to be scientific.
More than marxism, doesnt Popper's philosophy deal an almost death-blow to religion and its unprovably knowable ( according to the pious) entities?
DracoDormiens Yes.
Not really. It is a criterion for demarcation between what should be considered science and what shouldn't. It is not a criterion for all kinds of knowledge. Many philosophical theories are not falsifiable, which isn't necessarily bad- it just means they aren't scientific. Popper, who was himself a philosopher, didn't deny that other kinds of knowledge was possible.
Popper also debunks evolution by natural selection, because that's also in the historical record, and if we discover a fossil that debunks old theories, the paleontologists revise their theories rather than throwing the whole thing out the window! Same is also true of climate change, Popper debunked that too, because we only see the historical trend between CO2 emissions and temperature in the historical record. How can we possibly declare that's a "universal law" and try to predict the future with it? That's historicism! Thanks Popper.
Darwinian evolution is debunked already. The understanding of evolution and how it works has changed a lot since Darwin. And the historicity of “just so stories” of evolution is part of what makes them both so tempting and bad science.
If you devoted yourself to a primarily historic understanding of climate change you would already be wrong several times over in major ways in just the last few decades. That doesn’t mean nothing was ever right - but a lot of it wasn’t right, and hewing to it as always the real deal only gives you confidence it doesn’t give you truth.
Plus specific climate predictions are obviously difficult to the point of involving a lot of randomness - that doesn’t preclude trends and whatnot - but it’s humbling.
It is only in the political sense that the understanding of Darwinian evolution and of global warming remain unchanged based on how they are historically narrativized. And that’s just practical message discipline that is regrettable but necessary.
AIDEN TURNER
Tell this to the people who think the world will end in ten years because we have 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere
And you denying climate change might just confirm your ignorance towards science
@@janvierkasra3375 funny, he never said he denied climate change. And even if he did, you showed no interest whatsoever in considering your own fallibility. Perhaps climate change isn't real, and you're the one who needs to take Popper's teachings to heart by asking yourself what would prove to you it isn't? What would falsify the idea of climate change? And once you know what would, then ask the commentor for evidence of that thing. Yet that's not what you did, is it?
This would be a bad example. Because the revised theories of Marx led to the creation of an effective playbook for the revolt. It also helps explain how the US was able to prevent one, which is by diluting class consciousness via labeling everybody and their Grandma's laborer middle class
And that's the difference between religions and science. The approach of falsification
Marx never claimed that anything is 'inevitable' . The video doesn't use a single quote from Marx (or any other Marxist) so it's claim that Marx ever used the term 'False consciousness ' should be taken as ..... false.
Marx most certainly made a series of predictions about the fate of capitalism ending in a revolution of the workers overthrowing the capitalists. Arguing from essentially a hegelian dialectical position. Of course his many predictions failed to come to pass and rather than refute his theories his supporters simply revised them to fit the evidence such Stalin and Mao who gave up on the idea of a mass revolt and believed that intellectuals should actively push the workers to revolution. unfortunately this is not how science is supposed to work. Every thing in the video is accurate as you dont need quotes as it widely understood that that was the basic Marxist position on the fate of capitalism. One can read Marx himself and quickly arrive at this summary.
Marx's stages of history included the future. His predictions of the future were included in these stages. Of course, predicting the future based on the past is difficult when predicting the past fails.
Problem is deeper mate. In the logic. Dialectic based on dogmatic thoughts. You can check symbolic logic on this matter it will help you to understand the dialectic not the way to carry you to the answer instead of brings more problem. It acts like trial and error
@John Jordan Well, these science bitches always claim they are so sciency until you have to talk about facts like where do the scientists get the money from, how does the market influences scientific research etc. etc.
And by the way, the idiots never read those who had ciritized Popper. He is not a philosopher who has the absolute truth -- in fact his ideas are basically useless and were criticized. For instance, medicine is not a science if the only criteria for science is being falsifiable. And by the way, is Popper some omnipotent chap who vindicates himself the right to be the only one who can define science? He is just another armchair philosopher, not an actual scientist, you can't even say that he is somehow totally objective. Even this video claims that his whole definition is rooted in the dissatisfaction with Marxism and he actually hated communists and was a liberal politically -- what a coincidence!
He did say things like the revolution must happen "necessarily". To use one quote: "Capitalism BEGETS WITH THE INEXORABILITY OF A LAW OF NATURE its own negation." (Capital, chapter 12). Though that is not the same word as "inevitable" the meaning is the same. Do stop lying to other people and to yourself.
I 100% agree with this video, even though I STRONGLY support Karl Marx's fight for workers' freedom and for Marxists' personal sacrifice and suffering for our nation & world.
You shouldn't. You shouldn't refute a theory because it fails to start. This is why falsification isn't the criterion for the scientific method
Marx couldn't anticipate Edward Bernais and the ability of capitalists to engineer wants and desires.
Bro I just got 0 on my test, still worth it 😂😂😂
but they did revolt, and do revolt ALL THE TIME
Marx also didn't give some specific year for revolt, either
So this whole claim that "the workers didn't revolt so the prediction is falsified" is not just wrong, it's not even wrong
it's semantically incoherent
It's pretty much the same problem with people claiming to prove the existence of god
This methodology is as old as the hills.
Falsifiability isn't a necessary condition for truth or intelligibility. In fact, I would argue that it's more easy to conjure falsifiable theories which are actually false, and also quite easy to identify unfalsifiable statements which are certainly true (for example, "Karl had consciousness" and "Karl is now dead"). With a certain degree of skepticism (arguably the degree necessary for Karl's views on certain other philosophical and religious topics), no statement at all is falsifiable because falsification requires a statement to be made. That statement must be verifiable, or else it has not falsified the object. Since a thing cannot be verified and must be falsified, but falsification requires a verifiable refutation, Karls views are untenable.
And, in the case of Marxism, Marxism is indeed 'wrong', but not because they are unfalsifiable. In fact, I don't think that they are unfalsifiable at all -- only falsifying any worldview is not a simple task. The behavior and success of the workers isn't the sum of the premises necessary for Marxism, and Marxism is rather correct in its observations about the plight of the workers. However, it is Marxism's solution which finds itself to be a failure in that it lacks incentivization and accountability structures necessary for growth and the maintenance of a government free from corruption.
What you are describing is metaphysics, not empirical science. Karl having consciousness is not objectively measurable data, you'd have to define consciousness in a sufficiently concrete way that no two observers could disagree, upon a certain measurement, that the state of consciousness is objective. For "Karl is dead" provided you don't have Karl to test it, is also a pseudo-scientific assessment but there is sufficient consensus that the question is academic. Empirical science requires reproducible tests and falsifiability.
Karl Marx was a defendant of constructivist epistemology (like his master Hegel before him) which meant that he believed truth could be socially constructed. That sort of truth doesn't belong in empirical science. Neither does so-called consensus truth. Modern science generally deals with *correspondence theories of truth* - correspondence with "objective reality" - while mathematics deals with *coherence theories of truth* (which can often form models which can be theorised to correspond).
In defence of Marx, no political philosophy is scientific in the modern sense of the world. But then again, most don't claim such thing.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Though theories that are falsifiable can be refuted, refuting a theory doesn't mean that the hypothesis is no longer relevant. Marxism has quite a number of relevant ideas, and to ignore it as a whole because of some select passages seems highly disingenuous. Science really requires a synthesis of ideas - taking whatever ideas are viable and combining them into a new theory. Although Marxism is more strictly philosophy than science, the same principle should apply. You might find traces of Marxism in the new breeds of socialism that western nations are giving a try; though that is usually only pointed out as a kind of insult..
@@didanyonethinkofthis Marxism is still alive and well in China, the largest country on earth. Popper just attacks a few Marxists he has beef with, and declares to have "debunked Marxism," as if all Marxists are the same. The fact is, plenty of Marxists are fine with saying parts of Marxism are falsified. If you read any Chinese Marxist text it is heavily heavily critical of passed Marxist projects like the USSR, accusing them of dogmatism and refusing to change their economic model even when it clearly wasn't working in practice. The weirdest thing about Popper is not only does he accuse Marxists of not believing in falsification (based on his small sample size of Marxists), but he also uses this to conclude learning from history is entirely impossible, so Marxism is not salvageable, which is just absurd.
If anyone wants to talk about religion, you simplay say 'That's not science, fool', and leave. I love Popper for enabling us to have religions shut up instead of trying to claim to be a description of reality!
@ahlul sunnah That's not even the angle of approach that science takes so it's ridiculous to even ask for what you demand. You haven't even grasped the analytic-synthetic distinction as shown by you wanting mathematical proof (mathematics is true by definition). The reason why truth is valuable is because actions have consequences and we act on our beliefs AKA pragmatism. For example acting on a belief that you can fly like a bird will have you kissing concrete. Since acting on scientific models have a predictive use so great that they enable our modern lives they are pragmatically true, especially when put next to the predictive usability of religious models.
religious people dont all make unfalsifiable claims, so thats not a good argument. The idea of a creator is falsifiable.
itsnotatoober: more?
Think Double: there is a lot of debate re hypothesis testing, inference, inductive reasoning, among much else.
For anyone interested, check out Philosophy of Science as a research topic, as well as university resources such as Stanford etc.
This doesn't sound like something a philosopher would say. Not a criticism, simply an observation. I would be happy to see it refuted.
… and the libertarian would say “believe what you wanna believe“.
If possible what will happen if "falsification" of karl fails?
Marx theory does not fall into empirical science, put is rather a political theory with no formal empirical science basis.
@@fuckingSickOfCreepyG What does "empirical" mean to you if the historical record is not empirical?
@@amihart9269"Empirical science" has a very concrete meaning since Bacon and especially since Popper, although nowadays there are more modern frameworks that explain how and why most experience by itself does not convey any knowledge.
Without understanding that you'd be essentially living in pre-Bacon times and relying on intuition to know what experiences do show concrete knowledge or causality relations. I believe Marx was essentially illiterate in science, certainly by today's standards.
@@fuckingSickOfCreepyG Did you unironically cite Popper? The guy who stole his "falsification" concept from Hegel then pretended to have "debunked" Hegel, then went onto to claim he debunked that studying and learning from history is even possible and that it's a useless endeavor? That nut?
You keep saying "more modern" as if there's some consensus, that just shows you're an extremist dogmatist who sees the "consensus" in whatever country you live in as unquestionable and not inherently tied up with the historical, cultural, political, and economic development of the country.
Marx understood the scientific method far more than you do, unironically citing Popper LMAO
@@amihart9269 attribution has no relevance here to what is correct and what isn't
So that's only prof that marx was right
Refuting hypothesis in the human sciences is easy pickings. And anyway, Marx is proving to be more correct with every passing year - regardless if he claimed it was a science, or not.
I’m going to disagree. Many hypotheses in the humanities can’t be objectively refuted at all, which was the point Popper made. He wasn’t saying Marx was ‘wrong’, just that Marxism isn’t science by his criteria since it can’t be falsified.
I have an Masters degree in Philosophy (Oxford), Sociology (Cambridge), Psychology (Oxford) and History (Yale). I also have a PhD in Chemistry (MIT). So I am by far the smartest person here. That's all I wished to say.
།མཐོང་པ་དངོས་ཀ་དག་གི་དངོས་པོ་དང་དོན་དངོས་རིག།
Please read Marx s theory of value, how it is created . Capital part 1
Marx's critique of capitalism is undisputed, however, it's his solution to the problem of defeating capitalism that's the problem. His solution of using the state apparatus can be falsified because it happens that it wasn't the manufacturaries that revolted, it was the resource workers that did.
@Garfield's Minion Nikolai Bukharin wiped the floor was Bom-Bawerk in _Economic Theory of the Leisure Class._
Stop being so ideologically biased.
Karl popper get to the Chopper😂
Noice
Both Karl’s in this case could be criticized in the same manner.
Every time Popper says science “is” something, he is essentially saying that’s what he wants it to be.
It is without a doubt that some scientists conduct science in the manner he described but there are plenty of scientists who don’t.
Clearly he was ignoring the evidence that countered his claims the same way Marx supposedly did.
defining what science is, is not something you can find "evidence" for. The evidence would be proper reasoning, and justified refutations of what Popper said, which no one has done to this day. How can you make the claim that some scientists conduct science differently, and thus have a different understanding of what science is, when what science is, is what defines a scientist to begin with?
Suppose a kid in the playground claims he is a scientist for mixing mud and sand on the beach. Says mixing things is what science is. Is this kid's view of science justified? Somehow on equal footing with Popper? Is he now a scientist? And if he isn't, then you need to define who is, and who isn't. This necessitates an exclusion of people who are not scientists, even though they too have a view of what science is or should be. Surely you understand how ridiculous your proposal is.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter
Surely you understand how ridiculous your strawman is?
Nobody said that all definitions of science are equal.
My point was that Popper's opinion is just that, an opinion. His description of science is only applicable to a certain amount of scientists as can be clearly shown by the numerous other competing theories that describe science quite differently.
Your argument is essentially.... Well you have to exclude some people, not all people can be scientists, not everything can be science, therefore Popper.
@@Liliquan His description of science is so brilliant it is applicable to literally everyone, even outside of science, in daily life, religion and everything in between. Saying it is "just an opinion" is an understatement, it is the *right* opinion. And if you want to argue against that, you need to do better than just state your own opinion. Try "facts and logic". Argumentation, anything other than what you're doing at present.
No Google, I don't want to use my real name.
“Try facts and logic”
Try growing up.
5 Marxists disliked this
Not a marxist, disliked it.
6 marxists now
shit, you blew my cover
Marxist and loved it, the best way to improve is to challenge your way of thinking.
This video was made by people trying to discredit Marxism not trying to explain Karl Popper.
Not surprisingly it got such a warm response. Marxism has being vilified in western culture by the BIG BROTHER machine that do not want people to see the truth.
Karl Popper's view on Freud was just as critical, but you won't hear any of it here, because it would create a problem, how can Popper attack Marx who is a loony according to Western Culture Dogmas and attack with the same logic Freud who is considered on of the pillars of our so called science?
Sounds like the CCP
Popper was wrong about Marx. Marx did NOT think a revolution was inevitable. He thought it was desirable (obviously preferably non-violent) but was loathe to play the part of a prophet. He thought revolution leading to socialism was likely (and indeed socialism is an on-going and very young experiment, constantly attacked and suppressed by capitalists - to this day and remember, Hitler came to power by killing socialists for capitalists) because it overcame the contradictions and injustices of capitalism. Also, Popper is an intellectual shrimp compared to a giant like Marx, whose great contribution was an exhaustive and still profoundly accurate and frightening analysis of the nature, structure and character of capitalism. If you do not understand Marx's analysis of capitalism, what you think you know about it is capitalist propaganda.
Wrong on every level. Get back to Marx. Leave science to the grown ups.
Mischaracterises Marx.
So now we have Hypocritical Blah-blah Theory to prove it.
Marx was a futuristic who looked through the wrong end of his crystal ball
science has become a religion, replaced by scientism
Why? I'm doing a homework trying to explain this idea, if you can share more I'd appreciate it
Thank you
@@martinboites6107 We are being dictated too, what to believe, without any criticism, without showing all the pieces of information. We are given completely mental explanations without any demonstrations possible, and told to accept that as reality. There are many examples. Feel free to email me at my channel name @ gmail no spaces between the words
@@rocketspushoffair The information is out there, it's just scientists don't always tend to be the best at communicating said information to the average folk.
Climate change myth, in a nut shell.
how so?
All I think is Vampire
what?
I assume you love vampires
Right on every level. Sit the f down, child.
What about Quantum mechanics?
BA-DUM.....tsssss
@@herman5522 Ergo: Falsification theory is obsolete
Quantum theory hasn't been falsified though? And physicists are always looking for falsification, because they know it isn't the complete picture. Take the recent muon G-2 experiment- it showed different results which does falsify some of the sections of quantum theory.
There is god - prove me wrong. Even assuming there's no god you will still not find counter evidence to that statement, and therefore god is real. Stupid approach to dealing with anything, really.
argumentum ad ignorantium
In Popper's view, a scientific statement should be both verifiable and falsifiable. Can you verify your statement? In other words, prove yourself right! A scientist would neither assert nor deny the existence of God. It's just NONSCIENCE!
You haven’t constructed a falsifiable hypothesis in either case so you are probably formulating your proposition poorly.
Ah surprised this is still up at BBC, science doesn't add up to BBC policy of SJW hysteria and indoctrination...
Marx was never science and never claimed to be. He claimed to be a historian. What is this crap?
Liar. He claimed himself he discovered a law of nature that governs history. You're just lying, liar, liar, liar.
Marx was a social scientist actually; he specialized in sociology, economics, anthropology, and psychology. While his critique of capitalism is undeniable, it's his theory of the socialist state, which was to transition into communism that was refuted. Since then, Marxists after him, such as the Frankfurt school, examined human society through sociology, economics, anthropology and psychology. They most likely don't advocate for the socialist state any longer, and simply contribute to social sciences and side with anarchists.
@@CosmoShidan All of that is highly highly debatable. Before Marx social science didn't exist. Economics isn't a science, and anthropology can involve science but isn't a science. Psychology was seen, perhaps correctly, by Marx and those who came after him as capitalism's answer to Marx. It certainly didn't exist before Marx and he'd bristle at the association.
@@jeremymain7303 Ah, but Marxian and anarchist economics are sciences in their own right! And by social science having non-existence, do you mean the term didn't exist? Yes psychology did exist before it was named as such; it was part of the branch of philosophy called ethics. To say it didn't exist before Marx is ahistorical.
Also, anthropology is a science, but it doesn't involve experiment, as it collects data from observation; that is, if we're talking about cultural anthropology, which relies on fieldwork, participant observation, interviews/surveys and ethnography. Otherwise, I have to assume you haven't read anything by Franz Boas.
@@CosmoShidan Economics isn't science. I mean that the term was created based on his work as a historian.
"Yes psychology did exist before it was named as such; it was part of the branch of philosophy called ethics."
This sentence just reads like complete gobbledygook.
"Also, anthropology is a science"
Anthropology can quite literally be whatever anthropologists declare it to be. It can USE science as its sources. But it can just as easily use history. Art critique.
"Otherwise, I have to assume you haven't read anything by Franz Boas."
Wow, and the appeal to authority as the cherry on this sundae you've produced.
Marx wasn't a scientist and never claimed to be. He was a historian. Nothing you've written here even comes close to challenging that. Everything you've written so far is nonsense.
Being fanatically anti-communism i.e. conservative is just as stupid and irrational as being fanatically pro-communism.
I don't know you or what you've been through, but you matter. I grew up in church always hearing about God but I decided to do my own thing. Smoking weed and chasing girls, among other things. I did it for years and I was depressed for years..but one day a little while after being arrested and not even touching weed for a while, I lost control of my body. While still being fully conscious, God started speaking to me and He said "follow me or die." He scared me straight, for years I had the opportunity to accept Jesus as Lord but I never did, so God had to wake me up. After all these years I'm glad God said what He said. It was like someone pushing another person out of the way of a speeding car, to the person that was pushed it might seem rude.. but after that person gets a hold of themselves and looks back, they will realize that they needed to be pushed. Jesus Christ loves you and so do I.
God bless you
....and? Just because something isn't testable doesn't mean it can't be true, it just means it can't be proven true or false. But technically nothing can, and how dare that douche mention _black swans_ in a discussion that gives the middle finger to the problem of induction???
NothingIsSacred He's not saying something that's unfalsifiable is false, he's saying you wouldn't be able to tell whether it's true or it's false, which is just as bad.
How does this give the middle finger to the problem of induction?
He is a triggered marxist. Leave him alone.
To elaborate even further, Popper was trying to show that the problem with the Marxist theory of history, is that it tries to explain major events and trends in history via class struggle and economic inequalities, which renders the theory too flexible. It's similar to applying science to ethics or any other form of knowledge. That is to say, to broaden the scope of a theory and not realizing its limitations makes it seem to be irrefutable in that it attempts to explain everything as this or that simple thing.
+Meta tron Nothing wrong with being a Marxist if one is fighting for economic fairness,
and just leaves the bullshit unfalsifiable psychosocial analysis/beliefs about everything behind.
Marx was right, but as you failed to mentionne that in Marx made "Worker's consciousness of classist opression" a condition in the way of revoltion.
Maybe then, Popper wasn't a real Marxist, or didn't know what Marxism really is.
Popper was arguing against dialectical materialism to be exact, and deemed it as pseudoscience since it could not be tested and falsified.
Indeed.
Marx theory doesn't belong in the hard sciences though, but rather on so-called "social sciences" which are not in the same realm. Already by that time the definition of science was that of Bacon and his empirical successors, rather than just "knowledge". A scientific theory dies with positive falsification, whereas Marx's theory allows for counterexamples, which makes it pseudo-science (not meant to be pejorative here). Social sciences more often than not fall into pseudo-science, in many cases not only there is no falsifiability but not even an exact and clear positive definition of the observations, as for instance with psychological measures.
@Nuclear Confusion Well to be exact, Marx's scientific work, class-conflict that is, I think can be examined in the social sciences of sociology, economics and psychology. However, when applied to history, a field in the humanities as is philosophy and literary criticism, laws can't simply be applied since history is mostly about causation, retrospective, critical analysis and thinking, iconography, interpretation, and etc., as it does not involve observational phenomena or experimental testing, as both require a presupposition to present evidence. You simply just can't take letters, documents, photographs and artifacts in a lab or observatory and use mathematical interpretation to conduct an experiment or observation. Plus Marx's view of history is narrow insofar as it only looks at history from the point of view of Europe; e.g. he sees that only Europeans can develop a democracy as opposed to Asian and North African countries due to having limited water controlled by sovereigns or what is called Oriental Despotism according to Blaut, Said and Foucault.
To sum it up, Marx's attempt to turn history into a science is where he gets the accusations that started with Karl Popper, and was furthered by Blaut, Said and Foucault. The problems are that, for one, his views were internally racist, and he constantly used Europe as the default for his utopia in a historical stance.
@Nuclear Confusion There is a demarcation between social science and natural science. The former is the study of human behavior in social and cultural aspects, in terms of sociology, anthropology, criminology, economics, psychology, and political science. Most of its data comes from observation alone, as a social scientist works from a bird's eye view of society and at times up-close and personal when it comes to dealing with human beings and their daily lives. Not to mention that they have to rely on statistics. The latter though, as the name implies, is about the study of natural phenomena, such as physics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and medicine. This area of study gathers its data from empirical data via observations and/or experiments. My reasoning for why I am using a conjuction and disjunction in describing the natural sciences is that, not all of them use experiments to gather empirical data, as Astronomy relies on observation alone (you simply just can't put a star in a lab or manipulate a comet!). As such, the natural sciences is complex and does not simply use one singular means or methodology of gathering empirical data. It's as Paul Feyerabend once said, "Anything Goes" in the practice of science.