Excellent presenation professor Gijsbers! The series on Kant's critique of pure reason was impeccable, i hope this one would be of the same value.. go on!!
Indeed, this presentation is excellent ! Thank you very much. Nevertheless, I would bring some nuances on Popper's reflexions related to refutation in the field of medical research with human samples... Thank you again!
Your presentation is fascinating I say that because my attention span is short so I couldn't believe how i managed to see through all the video Thanks Prof. Gijsbers!
33:20 An example is the introduction of an imaterial medium to carry electromagnetic waves. Then someone observed that if there was such a medium then Dopler Effect should be observed. Morley, using an apparatus designed by Michelson, tried to prove that medium existence - and failed. The proponents of the Aether's existence then claimed that it was impossible to measure because the medium deformed objects causing the Michelson apparatus to not beeing capable of detecting it. Morley never gave up - he was a good experimentalist and didn't buy into the deformation idea. He started in the 19th century trying to prove Maxwell's assertion that electromagnetic waves used space itself as a medium. He spent his whole life refining the experiment and, in the end, made not only Maxwell's idea stronger but also Einstein's Relativity.
Personally from what i saw, there was a misinterpretation of Marx. But since i dont know popper much, im still getting into it , i want to ask, what is the difference between what you see his ideas as? As someone who would like to imrove my abuility to think scientifically ( i find that its bigges application is in daily life ) Anyway, have a good day
“All models are wrong… but some are useful…” - George Box To get great use out of any model, no matter how potentially useful, understanding the limitations, and the weaknesses of the model would seem to be crucial…
Uu now thats something i can get behind. I like Popper in some editions, for some theories, but this misrepresentation of Marx and Freud was very wack and seemed very politically driven. And really, the most right thing is this quote you wrote, or should i call it a kind of principle. To add to what you said think that ultimately, as human beeings we should strive to improve our models, and to realise that there are likely exceptions to them which we are not aware of, thereby there should always be a reserve in the back of our mind for " hey, this works great, but if i needed it to, it could probably work even better if i figured out how " Models as such, if im understanding the quote correctly, his point is that since models are not the thing itself but a representation of a thing which exists, and therfore they are wrong? Or ? Because i kind of see it like that. They always depend on the circumstance . My philosophy in a sence is that all models are right, however..however, the material conditions for each model to be applied does not yet exist or does not exist anymore to our knowledge. Since even flawed models in the more litteral sence can be usefull for if nothing else than to give us the abuility to go past that 0 progress zone of trying to describe something . Anyway, would you like to share anything more from George Bix that you find useful, or interesting, since this is the 1st time i hear about hom and i dont know whare to start with his ideas. Also feel free to correct me when u didnt get something Have a good day
Hi Victor. I hope you receive this well. I have a Popper question and no one seems to have a an answer for me. I want to know if Ai and big Data fly in the face of Popper problem with Historicism? I cringe every time I hear people talk about making PREDICTIONS with big data. Is this something other Popper enthusiasts have thought about?
You might like the article "Does the sun rise for ChatGPT? Scientific discovery in the age of generative AI" by David Leslie. It's not about Popper, but it does argue that by itself generative AI is merely repeating patterns we already possess, rather than coming up with the new, and that this flies in the face of a critical attitude.
Hi, Professor Gijsbers. I have questions not so relevant to this video: Is current paradigm of quantum physics overall (e.g., the Standard Model) incommensurable to the paradigm of classical physics (e.g., general relativity)? I am not familiar with modern physics but heard that many physicists now disagree Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Does the overall progress in physical science from 1970s to now seem to fit with Kuhn’s claim?
They say "space-time" bends and assume everybody knows what space-time is. It's not my field either (I studied engineering) but I can try to shed some light - haha - on the light bending thing. An implication of General Relativity is that time passes differently in different places because mass affects time therefore time if a function of space and that makes what is called time-space. The speed of light is constant therefore when it gets near the Sun the path it has to follow is the one that keeps the speed constant. Speed is the distance traveled in some time and a straight line used to be the quickest path but now if I take some path, time might be faster and the amount of time would be greater. Well ... it's something like that but I have a feeling it's easier to understand like this than saying that a four-dimensional space get curved by mass. (btw, it doesn't need to be a large amount of mass - grains of dust in space also do that otherwise there would be not stars since that is gravity). Now I'll rewind and rewatch the parts I missed! Thanks, btw, Prof. Gijsbers.
General Relativity actually claims that matter always cause space-time to curve. It is, however, easier to observe the effect if a really massive body is causing the deformation. I read on "The Open Society ..." - probably on the introduction of the latest edition - that Popper attended a lecture by Einstein and he was positively surprised by Einstein's comments on the experiments and observations needed to prove Relativity wrong.
@@drewzi2044 I think his main point is that an equation does not constitute a scientific theory, an explanation is always required. Otherwise, the theory would be subject to interpretation. The equation is merely the tool to obtain predictions.
The criticism you have of the first point should have more context and background. You say that confirmations that are easy to obtain don’t raise the probability of the statement. Popper wrote an entire chapter and many appendices explaining why this response was totally evasive, since no confirmationist stance that employed logical probability or evidential probability ever got close to explaining how this process worked.
It follows pretty trivially from Bayes's Theorem that if P(E) is close to 1, then P(H|E) is close to P(H). I don't have the format details on hand, but I'm pretty sure Carnap's attempts at inductive logic generate the same results.
@@VictorGijsbers The process I was talking about was to do with inductive learning. Bayesianism is not an inductivist stance, though some people claim that it is, bayesianism, in its most pure form is about how evidence changes beliefs. It really has no interest in whether those beliefs correspond with the world or not. Those that claim that the impact on beliefs tells you something about the world just falls victim to Hume’s problem. Bayes theorem is compatible with all interpretations of probability and doesn’t necessarily measure how evidence impacts on theories. The problem here is the problem of the prior. The prior should always be zero, since when there is no evidence there is no confirmation. There is an alternative measure that does a better job created by David Miller, which does have a flat prior. Carnap failed to model inductive learning probabilistic. Since his logical approach lead to many (many) different ways of apportioning the prior probabilities. The choice among the different apportioning rules was just arbitrary, Carnap’s approach is pretty dead.
Not a neurologist, so youll get the perspective of a philosopher/phichoanalist( in a Lacanian sence) and artist perspective. I am not qualified to speak proffetionaly on thease issues, so keep that in mind also. And whille i do use scientific principles in order to experiment and reach my conclusions in general, i wouldnt call myself a scientist, nor am i a formally qualified scientist. In of it self i dont find that institutions are necesserally the rightfull authority on thease things, but instead i think that using the methodology of a feild, gives a person the abuility to be a practitioner of the feild, however, this is not the popular belief for understandabke reasons, so thats why i prefice this by saying again, that thease are not my formal qualifications . First off, i do think that Popper from the few accounts ive found, misrepresents Freoud as well as Marx, and practically goes after straw man. I can go in more detail if you like, but for now: The claim that Marxism can inform someones opinion on whether or not someone is a bad person is not really what Marxism is about, because marxism is a systemic critique and explanation of capitalism, as well as an explanation of what drived society. And this as you no doubt can tell, is not really beeing described when someone sais " well some marxists look at the tv and judge whether someone is good or not based on what they say" Im franly not even sure whare Popper even got that from, or whare the youtube guy got it from either. On the other hand Freoud ( which i still cant spell right im sure) from what i can see, he was trying to explain how and why different motivations arise in a person, and if im not mistaken, then he was trying to explain thease motivations by the self reported accounts of peoples experiences, and by doing this he wanted to explain how societal influences impacts different elements of a persons behaviour and personality. And the part which is unscientific here is the fact that thease peoples experiences are self reported and thus are liable to be riddled with bias. However, i personally speculate that he was aware of this fact ,and thought that even if their accounts were not litterally true, the fact that his patients believed those things to be true, or lied about them were things which could give him insight into their motivations . And if you are trying to do what i think he was trying to do, than thats probably as close you can get to using scientific principles, because by their very nature, accounts of personalnexperiences are subjective, and as such are in a category which science is unabke to tackle with. I think ultimately, whats important is to use scientific thinking, even if phenomenon and their results evade scientific mesurement and documentation in a direct phisical sence . The value is in the science doing, and not necesserally in the result that one gets from doing science as much as it is possible, because lets not forget that if it werent for Freoud, it is very likely that the advancements we today have in neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, art, consciousness, would very likely not be very possible. I mean, freout had an extrordinary impact on human society and the medical discipline because he just tried so damn hard to find something even tho he was tackling with unquantifiable things many times. However, Freoud has made much more outlandish claims than Marx ever has, and given the fact that the feir of psychoanalisys was a very new feild which focused on the psychological element as the main subject, whille Marx come from an already established and existing feild of economics and he was trying to derive theories from a persons material curcumstance, i think given thease facts, its understandable why freoud would have e tougher time proving his own theories because medicine at the time was not so developed that he could test what is phisically going on in the body that impacts the psychology and behaviour of a person. In this way , there is also a fact that Freoud was, from my understanding ,attempting to break through the bounds of what people considered about human perception and experience itself, ao he delved into the realmes of the metaphisical and philosophical, and id like to think just like Žižek does, that psychoanalisys is a kind of lense for viewing the world like philosophy and science is, or like religion is. Im saying that its categorically a way to look at the world, rather than only a means to explain a persons behaviour , and i think that in this sence, Freoud des not need to be scientific. If im not misremembering, i think that this is exactly what he was talking about in his introduction to phycho analisys . On the oter hand, even if we were to prove his theroies as scientifically accurate now it still wouldnt mean that he was using science to derrive them because he didnt have the technology to observe the phenomenon he was describing to the degree to which he theorised about some of them . But again, even tho from what ive seen, a lot of his theories have been to some degree medically disproven today, i still think that those theories have value beyond beeing scientifically accuratex because they are frames of thinking which can be applied reguardless if they are phisical mesurable phenomenon. Excuse me if the paragraphs dont logically flow into one another, the fact is that i jumped around from one to the other , and so i hope the result is not too jarring. Have a good day, id love to read what you think on any of thease matters
Insofar as the examples in this video reguarding both Marx ans freoud, i dont really see how that was even a glimmer of a representation of what Marxism even is, let alone for it to disprove some element of marx. ( and you already cleared p Freouds name, but for some unapoarent reason left out marx as if he didnt exist, even tho he was clearly misrepresented as " just a wrong guy") He is just an economist, pholosopher and critic of capitalism, and so in order to disprove a theory of his, at the very least a theory of his needs to be presented first 😂 And this thing about a viewer watching 2 different politicians on TV and making a value judgement on whether they are good or bad, which for anyone who has actually read Marx, will realise that there is no such emphasise put on this abuility to judge if someone is good. Hell, there is not even a claim by marx that if you take marxism you can judge who is good and who is bad by listening to them on TV Marxism is in that reguard about analising who holds power in society, and who has the means of production, who creates value in society, how to organise society, how capitalism organises society. And thease theories can to be applied onto every single thong and be correct because they describe very specific phenomenon. He might not be always right ( which he isnt , and franky, idk what kind of standard Popper has here. " whats this, Marx is just too wirght about litterally every single thing...which must mean that he's wrong" 😂 I get what he means, but like how bout an actualnexample of when he is always rught about something insteadnof allowing us to imagine some hypotheticals which marx never even talked about as such. Like, Popper can think and all, and he has some great ideas, and thank god he isnt always right, otherwise he would be wrong, but he sure either had some political agenda for targeting Freud and Marx specifically, and then not offering evidence, or maybe he just didnt understand their theories which is also possible, (but not as likely in my subjective opinion ) And as the dude in the vid said " Froud disproved his own theories over time, and so did Marx. Anyway, have a good day.
I think wikipedia's page for this book has a better summary than this guy's. The whole premise of the book is to differentiate between a proper scientific method and a non or quasi science. Given this: 1) what justice was popper supposed to do to Freud and his theories. Psychoanalisys was not a science. 1.1) you say that popper's example to refute the scientific nature of psychonalyses was "completely made up", yet you admit that you know very little about freud and his work. Popper criticism of psychoanalysis is based on freud's work (i.e., interpretations of dreams, theory of resistance are just some of them). 2. History is not a science. They use, only sometimes, a scientific tool (to measure how old something is) but rest is just a description or explanation of the past. Grant it: a description is more scientific than a description.
The criticisms of Popper are the usual pap and nonsense. I was hoping for a better explanation. There has been a lot of academic effort to undermine Popper's theory. This is because he did take on two pseuds that were absolute giants - Marxism and Freudianism. This led to the bloated and still powerful anti-Popper industry - as much of academia and public policy was based on these two pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific absurdities. Popper has stood up well to the criticism - and stands all the better when the criticisms are explained as badly as they are in this video. Also, he should have pointed out the many Nietzschean roots of Freud. It makes it easier for students to see the tosh that was once claimed for Freud. No one is going to take a scientific application of Nietzsche seriously. Finally, history is not science. We can apply science to something - but that's thing's not science. History, the 'Queen of sciences' even fails to make it into the ranks of applied science.
Are you claiming that analytic philosophy of science -- which has resoundingly rejected falsificationism -- has been motivated by a desire to protect Marx and Freud? That is certainly a bold conjecture.
@@VictorGijsbers Did I say that? I talked about an 'anti-Popper industry'. There has been a lot of effort to refute Popper that needs to be explained. Why the overproduction of intellectual effort to refute Popper? Does it ever strike academics as all just a bit odd? We can say that Marxism should predict that we cannot find urban sites prior to farming - we have found urban sites that pre-date farming. Academic depts - of all types - still have Marxists in them who remain immune to the falsification of their 'scientific' ideas. Such people may be found in in many universities, many depts and many groups within depts.
@@VictorGijsbers That conjecture is not even the worst I've seen as to why Popper's genius has been neglected. A prominent physicist who is a big fan of Popper conjectured that the reason Popper is neglected is because he did "too good a job steelmanning Marx and Hegel." So Analytic philosophers just forgot about ol Popper because they were too enamored by Popper's Hegel and Marx.
Excellent presenation professor Gijsbers! The series on Kant's critique of pure reason was impeccable, i hope this one would be of the same value.. go on!!
Indeed, this presentation is excellent ! Thank you very much. Nevertheless, I would bring some nuances on Popper's reflexions related to refutation in the field of medical research with human samples... Thank you again!
I am a layman, your presentation I stunned no words to add.
Your presentation is fascinating
I say that because my attention span is short so I couldn't believe how i managed to see through all the video
Thanks Prof. Gijsbers!
24:57 Was that a Freudian slip?
33:20 An example is the introduction of an imaterial medium to carry electromagnetic waves. Then someone observed that if there was such a medium then Dopler Effect should be observed. Morley, using an apparatus designed by Michelson, tried to prove that medium existence - and failed. The proponents of the Aether's existence then claimed that it was impossible to measure because the medium deformed objects causing the Michelson apparatus to not beeing capable of detecting it.
Morley never gave up - he was a good experimentalist and didn't buy into the deformation idea. He started in the 19th century trying to prove Maxwell's assertion that electromagnetic waves used space itself as a medium. He spent his whole life refining the experiment and, in the end, made not only Maxwell's idea stronger but also Einstein's Relativity.
Thanks a lot for a clear and knowledgeable explanation.
You and I have a very different understanding of Popper.
Personally from what i saw, there was a misinterpretation of Marx.
But since i dont know popper much, im still getting into it , i want to ask, what is the difference between what you see his ideas as?
As someone who would like to imrove my abuility to think scientifically ( i find that its bigges application is in daily life )
Anyway, have a good day
“All models are wrong… but some are useful…”
- George Box
To get great use out of any model, no matter how potentially useful, understanding the limitations, and the weaknesses of the model would seem to be crucial…
Uu now thats something i can get behind.
I like Popper in some editions, for some theories, but this misrepresentation of Marx and Freud was very wack and seemed very politically driven.
And really, the most right thing is this quote you wrote, or should i call it a kind of principle.
To add to what you said think that ultimately, as human beeings we should strive to improve our models, and to realise that there are likely exceptions to them which we are not aware of, thereby there should always be a reserve in the back of our mind for " hey, this works great, but if i needed it to, it could probably work even better if i figured out how "
Models as such, if im understanding the quote correctly, his point is that since models are not the thing itself but a representation of a thing which exists, and therfore they are wrong?
Or ?
Because i kind of see it like that.
They always depend on the circumstance .
My philosophy in a sence is that all models are right, however..however, the material conditions for each model to be applied does not yet exist or does not exist anymore to our knowledge.
Since even flawed models in the more litteral sence can be usefull for if nothing else than to give us the abuility to go past that 0 progress zone of trying to describe something .
Anyway, would you like to share anything more from George Bix that you find useful, or interesting, since this is the 1st time i hear about hom and i dont know whare to start with his ideas.
Also feel free to correct me when u didnt get something
Have a good day
Hi Victor. I hope you receive this well.
I have a Popper question and no one seems to have a an answer for me.
I want to know if Ai and big Data fly in the face of Popper problem with Historicism? I cringe every time I hear people talk about making PREDICTIONS with big data. Is this something other Popper enthusiasts have thought about?
You might like the article "Does the sun rise for ChatGPT? Scientific discovery in the age of generative AI" by David Leslie. It's not about Popper, but it does argue that by itself generative AI is merely repeating patterns we already possess, rather than coming up with the new, and that this flies in the face of a critical attitude.
@@VictorGijsbers Thank you very much. I’ll look it up. Interesting time to be a thinker.
Hi, Professor Gijsbers. I have questions not so relevant to this video: Is current paradigm of quantum physics overall (e.g., the Standard Model) incommensurable to the paradigm of classical physics (e.g., general relativity)? I am not familiar with modern physics but heard that many physicists now disagree Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Does the overall progress in physical science from 1970s to now seem to fit with Kuhn’s claim?
God you have a great professor voice ❤️
Brilliant!
take a cue from the venerable Graham Oppy - he appears online with an empty bookshelf behind him ,... or populated only with children's board games.
Thank you ❤️
They say "space-time" bends and assume everybody knows what space-time is. It's not my field either (I studied engineering) but I can try to shed some light - haha - on the light bending thing. An implication of General Relativity is that time passes differently in different places because mass affects time therefore time if a function of space and that makes what is called time-space. The speed of light is constant therefore when it gets near the Sun the path it has to follow is the one that keeps the speed constant. Speed is the distance traveled in some time and a straight line used to be the quickest path but now if I take some path, time might be faster and the amount of time would be greater. Well ... it's something like that but I have a feeling it's easier to understand like this than saying that a four-dimensional space get curved by mass. (btw, it doesn't need to be a large amount of mass - grains of dust in space also do that otherwise there would be not stars since that is gravity).
Now I'll rewind and rewatch the parts I missed! Thanks, btw, Prof. Gijsbers.
General Relativity actually claims that matter always cause space-time to curve. It is, however, easier to observe the effect if a really massive body is causing the deformation. I read on "The Open Society ..." - probably on the introduction of the latest edition - that Popper attended a lecture by Einstein and he was positively surprised by Einstein's comments on the experiments and observations needed to prove Relativity wrong.
Well done!! Carry on :)
“Scientific theories are modelled approximately by propositional statements, but they are exactly explanations.”
But yet Deutsch gives a very vague account of explanations.
@@drewzi2044 I think his main point is that an equation does not constitute a scientific theory, an explanation is always required. Otherwise, the theory would be subject to interpretation. The equation is merely the tool to obtain predictions.
@@bygabop9368 That is not the point. There was no statement made about equations.
Thank you, Jesus!
The criticism you have of the first point should have more context and background.
You say that confirmations that are easy to obtain don’t raise the probability of the statement.
Popper wrote an entire chapter and many appendices explaining why this response was totally evasive, since no confirmationist stance that employed logical probability or evidential probability ever got close to explaining how this process worked.
It follows pretty trivially from Bayes's Theorem that if P(E) is close to 1, then P(H|E) is close to P(H). I don't have the format details on hand, but I'm pretty sure Carnap's attempts at inductive logic generate the same results.
@@VictorGijsbers The process I was talking about was to do with inductive learning. Bayesianism is not an inductivist stance, though some people claim that it is, bayesianism, in its most pure form is about how evidence changes beliefs. It really has no interest in whether those beliefs correspond with the world or not. Those that claim that the impact on beliefs tells you something about the world just falls victim to Hume’s problem.
Bayes theorem is compatible with all interpretations of probability and doesn’t necessarily measure how evidence impacts on theories. The problem here is the problem of the prior. The prior should always be zero, since when there is no evidence there is no confirmation. There is an alternative measure that does a better job created by David Miller, which does have a flat prior.
Carnap failed to model inductive learning probabilistic. Since his logical approach lead to many (many) different ways of apportioning the prior probabilities. The choice among the different apportioning rules was just arbitrary, Carnap’s approach is pretty dead.
Super Ego is Serotonin driven, while Id thrives on Dopamine. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in Neurobiology could shed some light on it?
Not a neurologist, so youll get the perspective of a philosopher/phichoanalist( in a Lacanian sence) and artist perspective.
I am not qualified to speak proffetionaly on thease issues, so keep that in mind also.
And whille i do use scientific principles in order to experiment and reach my conclusions in general, i wouldnt call myself a scientist, nor am i a formally qualified scientist.
In of it self i dont find that institutions are necesserally the rightfull authority on thease things, but instead i think that using the methodology of a feild, gives a person the abuility to be a practitioner of the feild, however, this is not the popular belief for understandabke reasons, so thats why i prefice this by saying again, that thease are not my formal qualifications .
First off, i do think that Popper from the few accounts ive found, misrepresents Freoud as well as Marx, and practically goes after straw man. I can go in more detail if you like, but for now:
The claim that Marxism can inform someones opinion on whether or not someone is a bad person is not really what Marxism is about, because marxism is a systemic critique and explanation of capitalism, as well as an explanation of what drived society. And this as you no doubt can tell, is not really beeing described when someone sais " well some marxists look at the tv and judge whether someone is good or not based on what they say"
Im franly not even sure whare Popper even got that from, or whare the youtube guy got it from either.
On the other hand Freoud ( which i still cant spell right im sure) from what i can see, he was trying to explain how and why different motivations arise in a person, and if im not mistaken, then he was trying to explain thease motivations by the self reported accounts of peoples experiences, and by doing this he wanted to explain how societal influences impacts different elements of a persons behaviour and personality.
And the part which is unscientific here is the fact that thease peoples experiences are self reported and thus are liable to be riddled with bias.
However, i personally speculate that he was aware of this fact ,and thought that even if their accounts were not litterally true, the fact that his patients believed those things to be true, or lied about them were things which could give him insight into their motivations .
And if you are trying to do what i think he was trying to do, than thats probably as close you can get to using scientific principles, because by their very nature, accounts of personalnexperiences are subjective, and as such are in a category which science is unabke to tackle with.
I think ultimately, whats important is to use scientific thinking, even if phenomenon and their results evade scientific mesurement and documentation in a direct phisical sence . The value is in the science doing, and not necesserally in the result that one gets from doing science as much as it is possible, because lets not forget that if it werent for Freoud, it is very likely that the advancements we today have in neuroscience, philosophy, psychology, art, consciousness, would very likely not be very possible.
I mean, freout had an extrordinary impact on human society and the medical discipline because he just tried so damn hard to find something even tho he was tackling with unquantifiable things many times.
However, Freoud has made much more outlandish claims than Marx ever has, and given the fact that the feir of psychoanalisys was a very new feild which focused on the psychological element as the main subject, whille Marx come from an already established and existing feild of economics and he was trying to derive theories from a persons material curcumstance, i think given thease facts, its understandable why freoud would have e tougher time proving his own theories because medicine at the time was not so developed that he could test what is phisically going on in the body that impacts the psychology and behaviour of a person.
In this way , there is also a fact that Freoud was, from my understanding ,attempting to break through the bounds of what people considered about human perception and experience itself, ao he delved into the realmes of the metaphisical and philosophical, and id like to think just like Žižek does, that psychoanalisys is a kind of lense for viewing the world like philosophy and science is, or like religion is. Im saying that its categorically a way to look at the world, rather than only a means to explain a persons behaviour , and i think that in this sence, Freoud des not need to be scientific.
If im not misremembering, i think that this is exactly what he was talking about in his introduction to phycho analisys .
On the oter hand, even if we were to prove his theroies as scientifically accurate now it still wouldnt mean that he was using science to derrive them because he didnt have the technology to observe the phenomenon he was describing to the degree to which he theorised about some of them .
But again, even tho from what ive seen, a lot of his theories have been to some degree medically disproven today, i still think that those theories have value beyond beeing scientifically accuratex because they are frames of thinking which can be applied reguardless if they are phisical mesurable phenomenon.
Excuse me if the paragraphs dont logically flow into one another, the fact is that i jumped around from one to the other , and so i hope the result is not too jarring.
Have a good day, id love to read what you think on any of thease matters
Insofar as the examples in this video reguarding both Marx ans freoud, i dont really see how that was even a glimmer of a representation of what Marxism even is, let alone for it to disprove some element of marx.
( and you already cleared p Freouds name, but for some unapoarent reason left out marx as if he didnt exist, even tho he was clearly misrepresented as " just a wrong guy")
He is just an economist, pholosopher and critic of capitalism, and so in order to disprove a theory of his, at the very least a theory of his needs to be presented first 😂
And this thing about a viewer watching 2 different politicians on TV and making a value judgement on whether they are good or bad, which for anyone who has actually read Marx, will realise that there is no such emphasise put on this abuility to judge if someone is good. Hell, there is not even a claim by marx that if you take marxism you can judge who is good and who is bad by listening to them on TV
Marxism is in that reguard about analising who holds power in society, and who has the means of production, who creates value in society, how to organise society, how capitalism organises society.
And thease theories can to be applied onto every single thong and be correct because they describe very specific phenomenon.
He might not be always right ( which he isnt , and franky, idk what kind of standard Popper has here.
" whats this, Marx is just too wirght about litterally every single thing...which must mean that he's wrong" 😂
I get what he means, but like how bout an actualnexample of when he is always rught about something insteadnof allowing us to imagine some hypotheticals which marx never even talked about as such.
Like, Popper can think and all, and he has some great ideas, and thank god he isnt always right, otherwise he would be wrong, but he sure either had some political agenda for targeting Freud and Marx specifically, and then not offering evidence, or maybe he just didnt understand their theories which is also possible, (but not as likely in my subjective opinion )
And as the dude in the vid said " Froud disproved his own theories over time, and so did Marx.
Anyway, have a good day.
I think wikipedia's page for this book has a better summary than this guy's. The whole premise of the book is to differentiate between a proper scientific method and a non or quasi science. Given this:
1) what justice was popper supposed to do to Freud and his theories. Psychoanalisys was not a science.
1.1) you say that popper's example to refute the scientific nature of psychonalyses was "completely made up", yet you admit that you know very little about freud and his work. Popper criticism of psychoanalysis is based on freud's work (i.e., interpretations of dreams, theory of resistance are just some of them).
2. History is not a science. They use, only sometimes, a scientific tool (to measure how old something is) but rest is just a description or explanation of the past. Grant it: a description is more scientific than a description.
The criticisms of Popper are the usual pap and nonsense. I was hoping for a better explanation.
There has been a lot of academic effort to undermine Popper's theory. This is because he did take on two pseuds that were absolute giants - Marxism and Freudianism. This led to the bloated and still powerful anti-Popper industry - as much of academia and public policy was based on these two pseudo-religious and pseudo-scientific absurdities.
Popper has stood up well to the criticism - and stands all the better when the criticisms are explained as badly as they are in this video.
Also, he should have pointed out the many Nietzschean roots of Freud. It makes it easier for students to see the tosh that was once claimed for Freud. No one is going to take a scientific application of Nietzsche seriously.
Finally, history is not science. We can apply science to something - but that's thing's not science. History, the 'Queen of sciences' even fails to make it into the ranks of applied science.
Are you claiming that analytic philosophy of science -- which has resoundingly rejected falsificationism -- has been motivated by a desire to protect Marx and Freud? That is certainly a bold conjecture.
@@VictorGijsbers Did I say that? I talked about an 'anti-Popper industry'. There has been a lot of effort to refute Popper that needs to be explained. Why the overproduction of intellectual effort to refute Popper? Does it ever strike academics as all just a bit odd?
We can say that Marxism should predict that we cannot find urban sites prior to farming - we have found urban sites that pre-date farming. Academic depts - of all types - still have Marxists in them who remain immune to the falsification of their 'scientific' ideas. Such people may be found in in many universities, many depts and many groups within depts.
@@VictorGijsbers That conjecture is not even the worst I've seen as to why Popper's genius has been neglected. A prominent physicist who is a big fan of Popper conjectured that the reason Popper is neglected is because he did "too good a job steelmanning Marx and Hegel." So Analytic philosophers just forgot about ol Popper because they were too enamored by Popper's Hegel and Marx.