How I’m reading:
I read while walking. I listen along, I don’t skip sections, and I don’t repeat something unless I can’t follow something and it seems like something I could conceivably follow if I listened again in this format.
This isn’t as efficient as reading the book in a focused way. I’m effectively skimming, and can focus in at a later suitable time (such as when sitting with the book as I am now) when I find something I want to dig in to more deeply. I think this is a useful way of getting through the book which I think has some important stuff for me but also a lot of stuff that is not of great interest to me.
It’s hard to follow the logical algebra in audio book form, I don’t repeat those sections as I don’t think any amount of relistening would give me a useful level of understanding.
General thoughts on C&R:
I think there’s a lot of stuff in the book that is useful and important (such as the extensive refutation of critics) but not of immediate interest to me. It’s good to know this is something Popper took very seriously so if I do interact with someone who is critical of Popper I can look these up and read them seriously to answer the criticism.
I think even if I did just sit down and read the book I would probably need to reread a lot to understand it very well.
Specifically from reading this week Chapter 11
The idea of separating metaphysics and physics which Popper argues against seems that it would abandon all conceptual thinking of things that can’t be measured physically. This reminded me of the anti-conceptual mindset explained by Ayn Rand.
I’m not trying to say that they are the same, or have the same cause. They seem to be compatible ideas. I think this could help understand scientists who are contemptuous of philosophy.
I think it is useful to be clearly aware of when your ideas are measurable in the language in physics. I think this will almost always allow you to falsify those ideas in relatively straightforward (or at least well understood) ways. I don’t think this is a good demarcation of what ideas to consider as true though, yet a lot of people seem to do that. I think people think it’s a good idea because they haven’t learned about using falsifiability as demarcation yet, so they don’t have the tools to identify true and false ideas that are “metaphysical”.
I have now succeeded in my goal.
This is a lot longer than I intended it to be. I could say more but would prefer to know if I’ve made any big mistakes first.
It was also easier than I expected it to be. I had some anxiety about publicly talking about reading. I felt pressure to say something very clever because this is a serious philosophy forum. I don’t think I said anything very clever. I don’t know what would count as very clever, I think if I tried to only say things that are very clever I’d never say anything and never learn how to say things that are very clever. It doesn’t matter very much though, being clever was never the goal. Unless you need to say clever things to take part in this forum, in which case I’m in trouble. I don’t think this is the case, I think I project my own inner critic onto this place.
I like this project format.
I’d like to keep commenting on C&R like this as I read. Would it be better to start a new topic somewhere else?