What do you mean “along with” Kuhn and Lakatos? They are dissimilar to Popper
As in they are people worth reading.
LScD is not the correct book to read if you want to understand Popper’s philosophy. C&R and OK are better choices.
You’ve asserted this before. So far no one here including myself has seen any reason from what you’ve said to think that. LScD has some interesting points but is overall wrong. I fail to see why at this point reading later books based on the same notions would be terribly helpful. Given what you’ve said here, my estimate that there’s useful material there has gone downwards.
LScD is Popper’s first major work. It is not representative. It is way more formalistic than Popper’s later work. He changed on purpose and said so.
He changed his mind about some stuff from LScD; he improved on it later. LScD is written before he understood the justificationism issue nearly as well as he did later.
LScD engages with the world views of his opponents a lot. It’s not oriented towards presented Popper’s whole way of thinking (especially his later way of thinking, after he refined it).
The later books are not “based on the same notion”. They often take a different approach: less logic, technical debate, more philosophical argument and explanation.
Since you haven’t read them, you really ought to listen to experts about which Popper books are best instead of just assuming, bizarrely, that the one you read which the Popper experts don’t favor is his best material. We’re telling you it’s not his best material; don’t judge him by it. It’s ridiculous to dismiss our worldview based on the books we’re telling you aren’t representative, while refusing to read the books we say explain what we’re actually about.
It’s ridiculous to dismiss our worldview based on the books we’re telling you aren’t representative, while refusing to read the books we say explain what we’re actually about.
I’m not dismissing your worldview based on books that aren’t representative. Indeed, earlier I told you that what you were saying especially in regards to morality seemed less reasonable than what Popper said in LScD.
The later books are not “based on the same notion”. They often take a different approach: less logic, technical debate, more philosophical argument and explanation.
So you are saying that he does less of a job making his notions precise and using careful logic? Using more words and less formalism is not making more philosophical argument, it is going back to the worst parts of philosophy. I don’t know what you think you think my views are, but whatever your model is of me you might want to update it or replace it if you think the above was something that would make me more inclined to read a text. Popper is clearly quite smart and clever, and there’s no question that there’s a lot of bad or misleading formalism in philosophy, but the general trend is pretty clear that philosophers who are willing to use formalism are more likely to have clear ideas.
in regards to morality seemed less reasonable than what Popper said in LScD.
He changed his mind to the same kind of view I have, FYI.
So you are saying that he does less of a job making his notions precise and using careful logic?
He changed his mind about what types of precision matter (in what fields). He is precise in different ways. Better explanations which get issues more precisely right; less formalness, less attempts to use math to address philosophical issues. It’s not that he pays less attention to what he writes later, it’s just that he uses the attention for somewhat different purposes.
I don’t know what you think you think my views are, but whatever your model is of me you might want to update it or replace it if you think the above was something that would make me more inclined to read a text.
I’m just explaining truths; I’m not designing my statements to have an effect on you.
but the general trend is pretty clear that philosophers who are willing to use formalism are more likely to have clear ideas.
I’m not sure about this trend; no particular opinion either way. Regardless, Popper isn’t a trend, he’s a category of his own.
As in they are people worth reading.
You’ve asserted this before. So far no one here including myself has seen any reason from what you’ve said to think that. LScD has some interesting points but is overall wrong. I fail to see why at this point reading later books based on the same notions would be terribly helpful. Given what you’ve said here, my estimate that there’s useful material there has gone downwards.
LScD is Popper’s first major work. It is not representative. It is way more formalistic than Popper’s later work. He changed on purpose and said so.
He changed his mind about some stuff from LScD; he improved on it later. LScD is written before he understood the justificationism issue nearly as well as he did later.
LScD engages with the world views of his opponents a lot. It’s not oriented towards presented Popper’s whole way of thinking (especially his later way of thinking, after he refined it).
The later books are not “based on the same notion”. They often take a different approach: less logic, technical debate, more philosophical argument and explanation.
Since you haven’t read them, you really ought to listen to experts about which Popper books are best instead of just assuming, bizarrely, that the one you read which the Popper experts don’t favor is his best material. We’re telling you it’s not his best material; don’t judge him by it. It’s ridiculous to dismiss our worldview based on the books we’re telling you aren’t representative, while refusing to read the books we say explain what we’re actually about.
I’m not dismissing your worldview based on books that aren’t representative. Indeed, earlier I told you that what you were saying especially in regards to morality seemed less reasonable than what Popper said in LScD.
So you are saying that he does less of a job making his notions precise and using careful logic? Using more words and less formalism is not making more philosophical argument, it is going back to the worst parts of philosophy. I don’t know what you think you think my views are, but whatever your model is of me you might want to update it or replace it if you think the above was something that would make me more inclined to read a text. Popper is clearly quite smart and clever, and there’s no question that there’s a lot of bad or misleading formalism in philosophy, but the general trend is pretty clear that philosophers who are willing to use formalism are more likely to have clear ideas.
He changed his mind to the same kind of view I have, FYI.
He changed his mind about what types of precision matter (in what fields). He is precise in different ways. Better explanations which get issues more precisely right; less formalness, less attempts to use math to address philosophical issues. It’s not that he pays less attention to what he writes later, it’s just that he uses the attention for somewhat different purposes.
I’m just explaining truths; I’m not designing my statements to have an effect on you.
I’m not sure about this trend; no particular opinion either way. Regardless, Popper isn’t a trend, he’s a category of his own.