Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Hmm, what epistemological propositions of Popper's do you think they're missing? To the extent that I understand the issues, they're building on Popper's epistemology, but by virtue of having a more rigorous formulation of the issues, they resolve some of the apparent contradictions in his views.

Most of Popper's key points are elaborated on at length in blog posts on LessWrong. Perhaps they got something wrong? Or overlooked something major? If so, what?

(Amusingly, you seem to have avoided making any falsifiable claims in your comment, while implying that you could easily make many of them...)






> Popper’s falsificationism – this is the old philosophy that the Bayesian revolution is currently dethroning.

https://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes

These are the kind of statements I’m referring to. Happy to be falsified btw :) that’s how we learn.

Also note that Popper never called his theory falsificationism.


It's just "dethroning" in the sense that QED dethroned Maxwellian classical electrodynamics; it provides additional precision and shows how to correct the more limited theory in the cases where it gives obviously implausible results.

What is a good example for which Popper delivers "obviously implausible results"?

From the page, the only point in the extensive discussion of Popper where it disagrees with (its own explanation of) Popper's ideas:

> On the other hand, Popper’s idea that there is only falsification and no such thing as confirmation turns out to be incorrect. Bayes’ Theorem shows that falsification is very strong evidence compared to confirmation, but falsification is still probabilistic in nature; it is not governed by fundamentally different rules from confirmation, as Popper argued.

Popper's idea that confirmatory evidence has no value at all is obviously implausible. Some obviously implausible things turn out to be true anyway, since the universe is not constrained by our imaginations, but not this one; as the page clearly shows, we know that this particular implausible result is slightly false, and we can use Bayesian probability to calculate exactly how wrong.

I've answered your question, because I think that's what a bare minimum level of courtesy demands, but you keep evading mine. What epistemological propositions of Popper's do you think they're missing?




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: