Topic Summary:
Imma follow along Karl Popper’s book Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. I’ll go over the first chapter here.
Goal:
Learn about Induction, what Karl Popper says about it, and what his philosophy is about. I also wanna find early prerequisites that I can visit to improve my prerequisite knowledge
CF Relevance:
CR is a prerequisite to CF
The first chapter is called Conjectural Knowledge: My Solution of the Problem of Induction. I know conjectural knowledge was talked about in a CF article. Conjectural knowledge is knowledge that’s fallible. That means we can always find a mistake in it in the future I think. We may find out that there’s an error in the knowledge.
I think I’m having trouble talking about the issue of how there’s going to mistakes in fallible knowledge. I kind of know how tho cuz I can describe it in CF terms. There may be a mistake in our knowledge cuz we might find out more about the goal, or get more context. An error may come up there. A mistake or error is something that results in failure at the goal. It might not always be a goal cuz we could also talk about purpose or problems.
Here’s a quote about how CR views knowledge(It’s from the article Critical Rationalism Overview):
I think CF agrees with what CR calls conjectural knowledge. That’s knowledge we have. It’s useful for a purpose or goal. What I’m unsure here is how to talk about information and how that is useful or good for a purpose. I think it would help if I use logic and grammar well to understand how “good, useful” modifies information in the following:
Now that I found the quote it says “ideas” not information. Am I making error here? It’s like im misquoting stuff in my head. It’s also like I’m remembering stuff vs. knowing it.
I only have the physical book rn so I’m gonna write the quotes by hand:
Of course, I may be mistaken; but I think that I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction.
The problem of induction is a philosophical problem. Idk why I think it’s separate from philosophy. I think sometimes why are we talking about induction? Do people use that a lot? How big of an issue was it in the past? Is it still a big issue today? I think I don’t know that much about induction or its problem, so I don’t know how important it was to solve back then.
So it seems that there’s induction. It’s an idea. But there’s also a problem associated with it. There’s something about it that has an error or is wrong with it. Maybe there’s something we can make better about it. What could be better about it?
I see that Popper says that he thinks he solved the problem. Maybe that’s in line with his philosophy. He’s saying that the solution he found is conjectural knowledge. Idk
Also, the problem of induction is equal to a major philosophical problem. It seems he was working with philosophy and he encountered the problem of induction and sought to fix it.
This solution has been extremely fruitful, and it has enabled me to solve a good number of other philosophical problems.
What does fruitful mean? This is what Merriam Webster says:
2. :abundantly productive
a fruitful discussion
a fruitful career
That’s the definition with two examples below it. I think Popper found useful things from the solution.
I wonder if the other philosophical problems come up while talking about the solution for induction.
However, few philosophers would support the thesis that I have solved the problem of induction.
It seems that philosophers disagreed at the time. I bet they still disagree today to some extent. I think they probably don’t engage that well with the content of Popper’s solution. That’s from what I’ve seen at a quick glance.
Is him solving the problem of induction a thesis? So him talking about the problem and solving it is the thesis. I think that’s what’s in the book.
The following is another sentence talking about the chapter:
This chapter is an attempt to explain my views afresh, and in a way which contains a full answer to my critics.
Btw Im reading the revised edition. The book is in a light blue color.
It seems in the quote that Popper already arrived at a solution before. He’s explaining his views afresh. What does afresh mean? That seems like updating people with his current views he talked about in the past.
The meaning of afresh from Merriam Webster:
To me it seems like doing something again from the start. Maybe you do it again but in a new way. You still arrive at the same conclusion.
Saying that the chapter is an “attempt” means that maybe there’s a chance it might fail? What does “attempt” mean? If it fails then maybe there was a confusion or critique he didn’t acknowledge that made it difficult to convey his solution.
The second part of the clause:
and in a way which contains a full answer to my critics.
I think that he’s explaining in the way described in the quote above. That or that the chapter is an attempt to answer his critics. Can you explain something well enough to answer critics? Aren’t you supposed to make an argument to them?
I think if Popper explains his views afresh it would answer any questions that critics have. Questions that ask about how some core thing works.
My first two publications on the problem of induction were my note in Erkenntnis of 1933, in which I briefly presented my formulation of the problem and my solution, and my Logik der Forschung(L.d.F.) of 1934.
There’s supposed to be footnote markers next the 1933 and 1934. Is it ok if I omit them while handwriting quotes? Is there a way to put them in? I’ll do more research online or just get the pdf of the book
Yes there are ways to put them in, but it’s generally OK not to. There’s a footnotes section at Forum Features Guide
I used superscripts from my mac’s special characters. They look like footnote markers:
My first two publications on the problem of induction were my note in Erkenntnis of 1933,² in which I briefly presented my formulation of the problem and my solution, and my Logik der Forschung(L.d.F.) of 1934.³
My first two publications on the problem of induction were my note in Erkenntnis of 1933, in which I briefly presented my formulation of the problem and my solution, and my Logik der Forschung(L.d.F.) of 1934.
Popper at least presents the formulation of the problem of induction and his solution in his 1933 book. I wonder if the formulation is a reformulation? What is he formulating? He’s setting up the problem?
Here’s the next sentence of the quote above:
The note and also the book were very compressed.
The note is in Popper’s 1933 book and the book is the 1934 one he mentioned. It looks like he made a whole book about the solution and problem of induction. Both were very compressed tho.
Here’s the next sentence:
I expected, a little optimistically, that my readers would find out, with the help of my few historical hints, why my peculiar reformulation of the problem was decisive.
Was it a problem that Popper was optimistic there? Did readers end up finding out how he wanted to? Does “a little optimistically” mean he had a good feeling about it? I forget what optimistically means.
What are those historical hints? Do those include the note and the book about the problem of induction? That note would be pretty important to notice. Like, it would be a big hint.
Also, I wonder if Popper’s reformulation is the same from the note and book. I think I kinda saw how Popper reformulated the problem of induction cuz I read ahead. He changed some words from the traditional problem of induction to be more objective. I think that’s what he did.
Also, I could kind of see how his reformulation was decisive. Not too sure, but it made the problem and the solution make sense. It seemed that something that was holding back solving induction. It was how the problem was described. That’s like making clear goals from CF. If you make clearer goals then it’ll be easier to label what results are failure or success…Im kinda unsure about that but I think clear goals guide you on what to optimize