Dennis Hackethal
@dennis-hackethal·Member since June 2024
Activity
#3565·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoThe myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Cultural relativism and the doctrine of the closed framework are serious obstacles to the readiness to learn from others. They are obstacles to the method of accepting some institutions, modifying others, and rejecting what is bad.
#3565·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoThe myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
The myth also stems from cultural relativism: the idea that truth is different for different cultures and that “there is no absolute or objective truth, but rather one truth for the Greeks, another for the Egyptians, still another for the Syrians, and so on.” (P. 45)
Popper opposes this relativism. He says it’s devastating when it comes to the administration of justice, say. “[W]e should try to understand and to compare [different cultures and conceptual frameworks]. We should try to find out who has the better institutions. And we should try to learn from them.” (P. 46)
The myth stems from a “disappointed over-optimism concerning the powers of reason …”. (P. 44)
People think truth should win decisively. But discussions usually don’t lead to such a decisive victory (see #3568). So then people become pessimistic about the fruitfulness of discussions.
The myth stems from a “disappointed over-optimism concerning the powers of reason …”. (P. 44)
People think truth should win decisively. But discussions usually don’t lead to such a decisive victory (see #3568). So then people become pessimistic about the fruitfulness of discussions.
#3565·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoThe myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
The myth stems from a “disappointed over-optimism concerning the powers of reason …”. (P. 44)
People think truth should win decisively. But discussions usually don’t lead to such a decisive victory (see #3568). So then people become pessimistic about the fruitfulness of discussions.
#3568·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoA fruitful discussion between people of different frameworks is possible, but we should not expect too much (p. 37).
Don’t expect to find agreement! If we learn “new and interesting arguments”, then even if they are “inconclusive”, the discussion is still fruitful. It can take “time and patience”.
“Truth is hard to come by.” (P. 44)
Don’t view discussions like debate club. The goal isn’t to win a debate or to convert others.
[E]ven the slightest clarification of one's problem - even the smallest contribution made towards a clearer understanding of one's own position or that of one's opponent - is a great success.
And:
[I]t is enough, more than enough, if we feel that we can see things in a new light or that we have got even a little nearer to the truth.
Popper guesses that science started “when Thales, the founder [of the Ionian school], encouraged Anaximander, his follower, to see whether he could produce a better explanation of the apparent stability of the earth than he himself had been able to offer.” (P. 43)
Science, a tradition of criticism, is unlike previous traditions, whose “Their function is, and has always been, to preserve the purity of the teaching of the founder of the school.” (P. 43)
Science, a tradition of criticism, is unlike other traditions, whose “function is, and has always been, to preserve the purity of the teaching of the founder of the school.” (P. 43)
Science, a tradition of criticism, is unlike previous traditions, whose “Their function is, and has always been, to preserve the purity of the teaching of the founder of the school.” (P. 43)
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39).
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes to draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39). They also helped develop Greek science, including math and astronomy (p. 40).
#3572·Dennis HackethalOP revised 2 days agoHistorically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Superseded by #3574.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork (p. 39).
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
Such clashes led Xenophanes draw important epistemological conclusions about truth and guesswork.
Historically, Western culture is the result of culture clash between Romans and Greeks, Greeks and Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians. (P. 38)
When ideas “conflict, then at best only one of them can be true.” (P. 39)
Even without a common framework, people usually share problems, “such as the problems of survival.” (P. 38) But even if they don’t, they can still learn from each other. Success “will depend largely on our goodwill, and to some extent also on our historical situation, and on our problem situation.”
A fruitful discussion between people of different frameworks is possible, but we should not expect too much (p. 37).
Don’t expect to find agreement! If we learn “new and interesting arguments”, then even if they are “inconclusive”, the discussion is still fruitful. It can take “time and patience”.
[W]e should look with tolerance and even with respect upon customs or conventional laws that differ from our own.
#3565·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 days agoThe myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Popper grants that the myth has a “kernel of truth” (p. 35). A fruitful discussion can be hard without a common framework. But it’s not impossible.
A discussion is fruitful if people learn. The more their views differ, the more they can learn from each other!
The myth Popper criticizes, in one sentence:
A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion.
By ‘framework’, Popper means an intellectual framework (as opposed to, say, certain attitudes like a desire to find truth).
Full citation: Popper, Karl. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. Kindle Edition.
Tradition is important, but:
[O]rthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.
If the court can force people to be jurors because it needs jurors, why can’t it also force people to be judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc? Why can’t it force carpenters to make tables, chairs, and gavels? Etc. Why draw the line at jurors? Seems absurd.