Note: the Popperians who were on here a while ago shed a new light on this post by bringing up fallibilism. I’m still sort of sad they ended up in a trollish relationship with us.
I had not realized there was a faction of “Popperians” around here, and thus went googling to try and figure out who they are/were! My tentative conclusion is that the primary authors with this philosophic starting point who evaporated are “HughRistik” and “curi” who respectively have blogs at Feminist Critics and Fallible Ideas. I drew this conclusion based on a hunt for usage of “fallibilism”, arranged chronologically here for the convenience of anyone who wants to see the details...
In May 2008 Eliezer wrote Science Isn’t Strict Enough which hits only because of a May 2008 comment by poke that makes a valuable distinction while summarizing Hume’s positions.
In April 2009 (6 days later) Swimmy wrote Awful Austrians which hits because of an April 2009 comment by badger who notes that “Barry Smith tries to inject fallibilism into praxeology in this article (the diagram on the last page is particularly interesting).”
Note: the Popperians who were on here a while ago shed a new light on this post by bringing up fallibilism. I’m still sort of sad they ended up in a trollish relationship with us.
I had not realized there was a faction of “Popperians” around here, and thus went googling to try and figure out who they are/were! My tentative conclusion is that the primary authors with this philosophic starting point who evaporated are “HughRistik” and “curi” who respectively have blogs at Feminist Critics and Fallible Ideas. I drew this conclusion based on a hunt for usage of “fallibilism”, arranged chronologically here for the convenience of anyone who wants to see the details...
In Jan 2008 Eliezer wrote But There’s Still A Chance, Right? which hits only because of an April 2012 comment by pnrjulius.
In May 2008 Eliezer wrote Science Isn’t Strict Enough which hits only because of a May 2008 comment by poke that makes a valuable distinction while summarizing Hume’s positions.
In April 2009 HughRistik wrote Heuristic is not a bad word which hits because it is the one and only article under that tag.
In April 2009 (6 days later) Swimmy wrote Awful Austrians which hits because of an April 2009 comment by badger who notes that “Barry Smith tries to inject fallibilism into praxeology in this article (the diagram on the last page is particularly interesting).”
In May 2009 byrnema wrote Dissenting Views which hits due to a May 2009 back and forth with pjeby by HughRistik.
In April 2011 curi wrote two articles one day apart titled Bayesian Epistemology vs Popper and Popperian Decision making. The first actually uses the term, and the second only has comments with it, such as relatively involved comment trees with people like Tetronian, Peteredjones, GuySrinivasan, and Desrtopa.
Edited To Add: Oh interesting… There’s Eliezer over on feminist critics offering counter evidence to a theory.
Wow, good job!
Yes, I was referring to curi and BrianScurfield.