What do you think?
Rate this book
Karl Popper
Karl Popper has been hailed as the greatest philosopher of all time and as a thinker whose influence is ackowledged by a variety of scholars. This work demonstrates Popper's importance across the whole range of philosophy and provides an introduction to the main themes of philosophy itself.
115 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
About the author
Bryan Magee
53 books208 followersBryan Edgar Magee was a noted British broadcasting personality, politician, poet, and author, best known as a popularizer of philosophy.
He attended Keble College, Oxford where he studied History as an undergraduate and then Philosophy, Politics and Economics in one year. He also spent a year studying philosophy at Yale University on a post-graduate fellowship.
Magee's most important influence on society remains his efforts to make philosophy accessible to the layman. Transcripts of his television series "Men of Ideas" are available in published form in the book Talking Philosophy. This book provides a readable and wide-ranging introduction to modern Anglo-American philosophy.
He attended Keble College, Oxford where he studied History as an undergraduate and then Philosophy, Politics and Economics in one year. He also spent a year studying philosophy at Yale University on a post-graduate fellowship.
Magee's most important influence on society remains his efforts to make philosophy accessible to the layman. Transcripts of his television series "Men of Ideas" are available in published form in the book Talking Philosophy. This book provides a readable and wide-ranging introduction to modern Anglo-American philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
March 26, 2013
This book is a great introduction to Karl Popper. Bryan Magee was his friend and worthy interlocutor. I have enjoyed everything I have read of both Bryan Magee and Karl Popper.
In this "review" I am going to do something unusual and append a wonderful essay by the American humanist, Joe Barnhart, as a complement, enjoy.
Karl Popper: philosopher of critical realism – Column
by Joe Barnhart
Sir Karl R. Popper, who died in September 1994 at the age of 92, will be remembered as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Although German was his native language, he was accomplished in his use of English to explicate humanistic values. Many regard him as the century’s most prominent philosopher; others point to his most famous work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, an unsurpassed defense of human liberty and dignity.
Referring to himself as an agnostic and an advocate of critical realism, Popper gained an early reputation as the chief exponent of the principle of falsification rather than verification. In the early 1930s, he set forth powerful criticisms of logical positivism’s attempt to label as meaningless all talk of ethics and metaphysics. But for almost two decades, Popper’s criticisms went either ignored or misinterpreted by all except a few careful readers. By contrast, in the past four decades, an increasing appreciation of his critique has helped us to better understand the phenomenal growth of scientific theory and the close relationship between science and the humanities.
Myth and Metaphysics.
In his books Objective Knowledge and Conjectures and Refutations, Popper demonstrates brilliantly the roles of myth and metaphysics in the scientific enterprise. Myths represent our human need to expand the horizon of explanation and to find our place in the vast scheme of things. Emphasizing the importance of boldness of imagination in fulfilling this need, Popper suggests that Democritus’ early theory of atoms began as a myth born of a daring imagination.
Myths sometimes graduate to the status of metaphysics when subjected to sustained and rigorous criticism. Metaphysics is the work we do when we carry out comparative analysis of our cosmological myths and theories. It is our drive to eliminate inconsistencies, to broaden the scope of our explanations, and to provide depth of detail. If there are priests of myth who insist on perpetuating the myths without correction or revision, there are others among us who both subject the myths to criticism and offer rival theoretical explanations. Of late, the term metaphysics has been adopted and used to propagate the uncritical and highly anthropomorphic notions of pop culture. This is not the tradition of rigorous metaphysics of which Popper speaks.
Far from being meaningless, critical metaphysics and cosmology provide the cognitive background for the growth of scientific theory. Logical positivists failed to see that, without metaphysics to work upon and to refine, science would stagnate. In some ways, science is the metaphysics that succeeded in spawning bold theories which are not only well articulated and critically debated but also observably testable–and by testable, Popper means falsifiable.
Falsification.
Perhaps the major contribution made to science by Popper emerges from his argument that the job of scientific experiment is to seek evidence not to support a proposed theory but, rather, to refute it. He contends that science becomes mere ritual, making only meager progress, when it settles for testing to verify a favored hypothesis. The real task of experimental testing is that of trying to find the hypothesis’ weaknesses and flaws. One way to put a theory or hypothesis to the test is to draw from it predictions about observable events in time and space. A theory becomes scientific when it is specific enough to be falsifiable and when it covers specified events observable in time and space. It ceases to be scientific when it hides behind vagueness or risks no bold and daring predictions going beyond the general consensus.
According to Popper, the whole point of seeking to shoot down our scientific theories is not simply to increase our supply of skepticism. Rather, the goal is to generate better theories–ones which are both bold and able to stand up under rigorous criticism without resorting to verbal tricks and vagueness. Popper’s humanism shines brightest when he urges us to seek out criticism of our theories. Intellectual courage and honesty in uncovering contradictions are thus essential to the search for both better explanations and better plans of action.
Skeptics and Believers.
Those who call themselves skeptics sometimes quote W. C. Clifford: “It is wrong, always and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Unfortunately, Clifford gives no rational hint as to how many pieces of evidence total up to being sufficient. Thinkers strongly influenced by Popper’s (and David Hume’s) arguments against induction will be skeptical of Clifford’s claim. Instead of advocating that we pile up sufficient positive evidence to prove or verify a belief, Popper offers an entire new way to think about testing our beliefs and corroborating them. I confess that I find Popper’s epistemology more convincing than either the verificationists and conventionalists, on the one hand, or the dogmatists, on the other hand.
Furthermore, Popper’s epistemology makes no fetish of either skepticism or faith. I know of no one who practices either wholesale skepticism or wholesale faith. All believers in certain claims are skeptics about rival claims. And all skeptics regarding some claims are believers regarding other claims. All of us, however, have pockets in our lives in which we would be better off if we showed more faith or trust. At the same time, there are pockets in which we would be better off if we trusted less–or at least shifted our faith to something or somebody more trustworthy. Trust and faith, like skepticism, are essential ingredients to human living. Skepticism per se is neither the enemy nor ally of faith per se, for the simple reason that neither exists.
Errors and the Search for Better Explanations.
If to err is human, then Popper’s philosophy may be regarded as perhaps the most thoroughgoing attempt to humanize the learning process, for he regards all learning as trial and error. Our mistakes in solving problems need not be viewed as failures but as a means for spawning still better solutions. This is especially true both when we try to learn how our mistakes were made and when we free our imagination to try out new conjectures.
Imagination and Intuition.
The beauty of Popper’s evolutionary theory of knowledge lies in its insistence that imagination and speculation are essential ingredients of the thinking process. Intuitions become a part of every variety of genuine thinking, including science, because they are accepted as trials rather than dogmas.
Most of our scientific intuitions and conjectures have proved to be unsatisfactory. But Popper argues that some falsified theories have contributed more to the growth of science than have safe, shallow theories that no one has bothered to falsify. Science needs fruitful and falsifiable hypotheses that not only venture into new territory but seemingly go counter to common sense. “Let your hypotheses die for you,” Popper proclaimed. His epistemology is truly liberating, saying in effect that we should not worry about our theories cracking or collapsing because there are always more where they came from.
Creationism and Evolution.
Creationists who insist on classifying their views as “scientific creationism” may not know what they are getting into. Do they really want to assert that creationism is falsifiable? Do they want to try to expose its weaknesses and flaws? Do they seek to correct and revise the doctrine? As is well known, creationists take great delight in pointing out that the theory of evolution is, after all, a theory. But this should pose no problem. All scientific theories are theories. Do creationists want to say that creationism is a theory? Do they want to say that the notion of the Bible as inerrant revelation is a theory?
If Popper’s analysis is correct, then both evolution and creationism are theories. The real question has to do with how well they are articulated, how well they serve to advance further research, and how well they survive rigorous criticism. The overwhelming majority of biologists and anthropologists have found creationism to be a poor rival to evolution in the attempt to expand our knowledge. Contrary to what some creationists claim, scientists tend to favor evolution as an explanatory theory not because of some presupposition that blinds them to the truth but, rather, because it is scientifically more fruitful than creationism and enjoys greater explanatory power.
Biases and Presuppositions.
One of the significant advantages of Popper’s philosophy is found in the way it handles biases and presuppositions. In effect, it says that we always start with biases. Furthermore, we can never free ourselves of biases for the simple reason that they are essential to thinking. It is good to have biases, for they provide us with the raw material to examine, criticize, and revise or replace with new and (we hope) better biases.
Some evangelical theologians make a great deal out of presuppositions. They charge that evolutionists presuppose from the start a naturalistic rather than theistic framework. This charge is not entirely accurate, for there are theistic evolutionists. But according to Popper’s epistemology, since a presupposition is only a conjecture or conclusion used to help spawn other conjectures, there is no reason why presuppositions cannot be debated and criticized. They have no diplomatic immunity.
According to Popper, objectivity is, therefore, not a psychological state of mind purified of all biases and presuppositions (he never confuses an open mind with a blank mind) but, rather, a two-pronged openness: openness to severe criticism and openness to look into alternative or even rival theories.
Indoctrination.
Popper’s theory of learning not only allows for indoctrination but requires it. Many humanists have been perpetually ambivalent about whether or not to indoctrinate the young into humanistic views and values. Indeed, some humanists in the past seem to have believed that objectivity or openness of mind required weak indoctrination. From the perspective of Karl Popper, by contrast, indoctrination should be thorough, not in the sense of shutting off all criticisms but in the sense of being done competently and by someone who is informed and articulate.
Popper sees the importance and necessity of indoctrination. Without it, there could be no education or objective inquiry. Humanists need to understand more clearly that each generation needs to be indoctrinated in humanistic values if these values are to be improved and passed on from generation to generation.
Although indoctrination is an absolutely essential ingredient of education or objective inquiry, it is never a sufficient ingredient. Indoctrination moves toward education only as it is combined with openness to criticism and to rival indoctrinations, views, conjecture, theories, and doctrines. Such openness of inquiry gives humanists hope that their humanistic convictions, commitments, and beliefs will in the future be even more profoundly articulated and more effectively communicated.
The Human Community.
I close with a quotation from the last paragraph of John Dewey’s little book, A Common Faith. It gives voice to much of the thrust of Karl Popper’s work and life:
We who now live are parts of a humanity that extends into the remote past, a humanity that interacts with nature. The things in civilization we prize most are not of ourselves. They exist by the grace of the doings and sufferings of the continuous human community in which we are a link. Ours is the responsibility of conserving, transmitting, and expanding the heritage of values we have received [so] that those who come after us may receive it more solid and secure, more widely accessible and more generously shared than we have received it.
In this "review" I am going to do something unusual and append a wonderful essay by the American humanist, Joe Barnhart, as a complement, enjoy.
Karl Popper: philosopher of critical realism – Column
by Joe Barnhart
Sir Karl R. Popper, who died in September 1994 at the age of 92, will be remembered as one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Although German was his native language, he was accomplished in his use of English to explicate humanistic values. Many regard him as the century’s most prominent philosopher; others point to his most famous work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, an unsurpassed defense of human liberty and dignity.
Referring to himself as an agnostic and an advocate of critical realism, Popper gained an early reputation as the chief exponent of the principle of falsification rather than verification. In the early 1930s, he set forth powerful criticisms of logical positivism’s attempt to label as meaningless all talk of ethics and metaphysics. But for almost two decades, Popper’s criticisms went either ignored or misinterpreted by all except a few careful readers. By contrast, in the past four decades, an increasing appreciation of his critique has helped us to better understand the phenomenal growth of scientific theory and the close relationship between science and the humanities.
Myth and Metaphysics.
In his books Objective Knowledge and Conjectures and Refutations, Popper demonstrates brilliantly the roles of myth and metaphysics in the scientific enterprise. Myths represent our human need to expand the horizon of explanation and to find our place in the vast scheme of things. Emphasizing the importance of boldness of imagination in fulfilling this need, Popper suggests that Democritus’ early theory of atoms began as a myth born of a daring imagination.
Myths sometimes graduate to the status of metaphysics when subjected to sustained and rigorous criticism. Metaphysics is the work we do when we carry out comparative analysis of our cosmological myths and theories. It is our drive to eliminate inconsistencies, to broaden the scope of our explanations, and to provide depth of detail. If there are priests of myth who insist on perpetuating the myths without correction or revision, there are others among us who both subject the myths to criticism and offer rival theoretical explanations. Of late, the term metaphysics has been adopted and used to propagate the uncritical and highly anthropomorphic notions of pop culture. This is not the tradition of rigorous metaphysics of which Popper speaks.
Far from being meaningless, critical metaphysics and cosmology provide the cognitive background for the growth of scientific theory. Logical positivists failed to see that, without metaphysics to work upon and to refine, science would stagnate. In some ways, science is the metaphysics that succeeded in spawning bold theories which are not only well articulated and critically debated but also observably testable–and by testable, Popper means falsifiable.
Falsification.
Perhaps the major contribution made to science by Popper emerges from his argument that the job of scientific experiment is to seek evidence not to support a proposed theory but, rather, to refute it. He contends that science becomes mere ritual, making only meager progress, when it settles for testing to verify a favored hypothesis. The real task of experimental testing is that of trying to find the hypothesis’ weaknesses and flaws. One way to put a theory or hypothesis to the test is to draw from it predictions about observable events in time and space. A theory becomes scientific when it is specific enough to be falsifiable and when it covers specified events observable in time and space. It ceases to be scientific when it hides behind vagueness or risks no bold and daring predictions going beyond the general consensus.
According to Popper, the whole point of seeking to shoot down our scientific theories is not simply to increase our supply of skepticism. Rather, the goal is to generate better theories–ones which are both bold and able to stand up under rigorous criticism without resorting to verbal tricks and vagueness. Popper’s humanism shines brightest when he urges us to seek out criticism of our theories. Intellectual courage and honesty in uncovering contradictions are thus essential to the search for both better explanations and better plans of action.
Skeptics and Believers.
Those who call themselves skeptics sometimes quote W. C. Clifford: “It is wrong, always and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” Unfortunately, Clifford gives no rational hint as to how many pieces of evidence total up to being sufficient. Thinkers strongly influenced by Popper’s (and David Hume’s) arguments against induction will be skeptical of Clifford’s claim. Instead of advocating that we pile up sufficient positive evidence to prove or verify a belief, Popper offers an entire new way to think about testing our beliefs and corroborating them. I confess that I find Popper’s epistemology more convincing than either the verificationists and conventionalists, on the one hand, or the dogmatists, on the other hand.
Furthermore, Popper’s epistemology makes no fetish of either skepticism or faith. I know of no one who practices either wholesale skepticism or wholesale faith. All believers in certain claims are skeptics about rival claims. And all skeptics regarding some claims are believers regarding other claims. All of us, however, have pockets in our lives in which we would be better off if we showed more faith or trust. At the same time, there are pockets in which we would be better off if we trusted less–or at least shifted our faith to something or somebody more trustworthy. Trust and faith, like skepticism, are essential ingredients to human living. Skepticism per se is neither the enemy nor ally of faith per se, for the simple reason that neither exists.
Errors and the Search for Better Explanations.
If to err is human, then Popper’s philosophy may be regarded as perhaps the most thoroughgoing attempt to humanize the learning process, for he regards all learning as trial and error. Our mistakes in solving problems need not be viewed as failures but as a means for spawning still better solutions. This is especially true both when we try to learn how our mistakes were made and when we free our imagination to try out new conjectures.
Imagination and Intuition.
The beauty of Popper’s evolutionary theory of knowledge lies in its insistence that imagination and speculation are essential ingredients of the thinking process. Intuitions become a part of every variety of genuine thinking, including science, because they are accepted as trials rather than dogmas.
Most of our scientific intuitions and conjectures have proved to be unsatisfactory. But Popper argues that some falsified theories have contributed more to the growth of science than have safe, shallow theories that no one has bothered to falsify. Science needs fruitful and falsifiable hypotheses that not only venture into new territory but seemingly go counter to common sense. “Let your hypotheses die for you,” Popper proclaimed. His epistemology is truly liberating, saying in effect that we should not worry about our theories cracking or collapsing because there are always more where they came from.
Creationism and Evolution.
Creationists who insist on classifying their views as “scientific creationism” may not know what they are getting into. Do they really want to assert that creationism is falsifiable? Do they want to try to expose its weaknesses and flaws? Do they seek to correct and revise the doctrine? As is well known, creationists take great delight in pointing out that the theory of evolution is, after all, a theory. But this should pose no problem. All scientific theories are theories. Do creationists want to say that creationism is a theory? Do they want to say that the notion of the Bible as inerrant revelation is a theory?
If Popper’s analysis is correct, then both evolution and creationism are theories. The real question has to do with how well they are articulated, how well they serve to advance further research, and how well they survive rigorous criticism. The overwhelming majority of biologists and anthropologists have found creationism to be a poor rival to evolution in the attempt to expand our knowledge. Contrary to what some creationists claim, scientists tend to favor evolution as an explanatory theory not because of some presupposition that blinds them to the truth but, rather, because it is scientifically more fruitful than creationism and enjoys greater explanatory power.
Biases and Presuppositions.
One of the significant advantages of Popper’s philosophy is found in the way it handles biases and presuppositions. In effect, it says that we always start with biases. Furthermore, we can never free ourselves of biases for the simple reason that they are essential to thinking. It is good to have biases, for they provide us with the raw material to examine, criticize, and revise or replace with new and (we hope) better biases.
Some evangelical theologians make a great deal out of presuppositions. They charge that evolutionists presuppose from the start a naturalistic rather than theistic framework. This charge is not entirely accurate, for there are theistic evolutionists. But according to Popper’s epistemology, since a presupposition is only a conjecture or conclusion used to help spawn other conjectures, there is no reason why presuppositions cannot be debated and criticized. They have no diplomatic immunity.
According to Popper, objectivity is, therefore, not a psychological state of mind purified of all biases and presuppositions (he never confuses an open mind with a blank mind) but, rather, a two-pronged openness: openness to severe criticism and openness to look into alternative or even rival theories.
Indoctrination.
Popper’s theory of learning not only allows for indoctrination but requires it. Many humanists have been perpetually ambivalent about whether or not to indoctrinate the young into humanistic views and values. Indeed, some humanists in the past seem to have believed that objectivity or openness of mind required weak indoctrination. From the perspective of Karl Popper, by contrast, indoctrination should be thorough, not in the sense of shutting off all criticisms but in the sense of being done competently and by someone who is informed and articulate.
Popper sees the importance and necessity of indoctrination. Without it, there could be no education or objective inquiry. Humanists need to understand more clearly that each generation needs to be indoctrinated in humanistic values if these values are to be improved and passed on from generation to generation.
Although indoctrination is an absolutely essential ingredient of education or objective inquiry, it is never a sufficient ingredient. Indoctrination moves toward education only as it is combined with openness to criticism and to rival indoctrinations, views, conjecture, theories, and doctrines. Such openness of inquiry gives humanists hope that their humanistic convictions, commitments, and beliefs will in the future be even more profoundly articulated and more effectively communicated.
The Human Community.
I close with a quotation from the last paragraph of John Dewey’s little book, A Common Faith. It gives voice to much of the thrust of Karl Popper’s work and life:
We who now live are parts of a humanity that extends into the remote past, a humanity that interacts with nature. The things in civilization we prize most are not of ourselves. They exist by the grace of the doings and sufferings of the continuous human community in which we are a link. Ours is the responsibility of conserving, transmitting, and expanding the heritage of values we have received [so] that those who come after us may receive it more solid and secure, more widely accessible and more generously shared than we have received it.
March 30, 2021
Never has someone moved up so quickly in my hierarchy of favorite philosophers. The overviews of Popper's views and scholarship, as laid out in this book, are extremely clear and corrective to the many misapprehensions that people have regarding his work. I certainly recognized some of my own biases based on superficial understandings of his work, and couldn't be more motivated to take a deeper dive into his many insights, of both an epistemic and political nature, which have been all too ignored over the past century.
Highly recommend this easy read to anyone interested in this sort of stuff.
Highly recommend this easy read to anyone interested in this sort of stuff.
February 17, 2015
I really enjoyed this slim volume explaining Popper's views on science, logic, and government.
Money quote: "What this comes down to is the assertion that before you change anything, you must change everything, which is self-contradictory. Second, whatever actions we take will have some unintended consequences which may easily be at odds with our blueprint. And the more wholesale the action the more plentiful the unintended consequences. To claim rationality for sweeping plans to change society as a whole is to claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge which we simply do not possess."
Money quote: "What this comes down to is the assertion that before you change anything, you must change everything, which is self-contradictory. Second, whatever actions we take will have some unintended consequences which may easily be at odds with our blueprint. And the more wholesale the action the more plentiful the unintended consequences. To claim rationality for sweeping plans to change society as a whole is to claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge which we simply do not possess."
December 19, 2019
This small book is a great resource for understanding Karl Popper's wide-ranging and worldview which is all the more important given that a lot of serious people misunderstand (even the fundamentals) of Popper.
Magee shows a deep understanding and appreciate for Popper, adequately explaining Popper's thinking on epistemology, science, democracy and the open-society, and how they are all intimately connected.
Maggee clears up that Popper is not a logical positivist or verificationalist (or a cousin such as a falsificationist). Popper was very critical of logical positivism and his theory of demarcation between science and non-science was not one between meaning and nonsense. To the contrary, Popper viewed many philosophical theories (including his own) as very meaningful.
Magee shows a deep understanding and appreciate for Popper, adequately explaining Popper's thinking on epistemology, science, democracy and the open-society, and how they are all intimately connected.
Maggee clears up that Popper is not a logical positivist or verificationalist (or a cousin such as a falsificationist). Popper was very critical of logical positivism and his theory of demarcation between science and non-science was not one between meaning and nonsense. To the contrary, Popper viewed many philosophical theories (including his own) as very meaningful.
Read
May 29, 2021Interessante korte introductie op Popper, een van de centrale wetenschapsfilosofen uit de 20ste eeuw. Popper heeft een sceptisch instrumentarium voorgesteld met zijn falsificatiecriterium en eisen voor het demarcatieprobleem. Wanneer mag men spreken over objectiviteit of goede wetenschap? Hoewel hii volgens Magee geen sluitend antwoord biedt is Popper volgens mij interessant om naast Thomas Kuhn te houden, om de specifieke dynamiek van wetenschapsbeoefening te begrijpen.
April 1, 2012
Blew my mind and gave focus to a lot of issues that bugged me about how work is done and the inefficiency inherent in the "way they always have done it" mindset. How do you deal with institutional knowledge when the key person who has been there for a long time leaves and takes that history and knowledge with them, leaving behind people who have huge gaps in the proven methods of doing their work? Knowledge Management. It makes so much sense to Virgos!
April 6, 2024
Wow, I loved this little book and anticipate reading it again, in addition to attempting something from Popper himself. The author describes Popper's philosophy as a "philosophy of action" and contrasts it with other philosophical theories as deeply practical, truly a compass to live by versus an intellectual exercise that ends in a twisted puzzle of unanswerable questions. The book covers, in a concise 100 pages or so, his main fields of thought: science/truth, the evolution of knowledge, and politics. I enjoyed the former two the most but given the current state of politics in the US, I am interested to dive deeper into the latter.
Popper dismantles a question that has, according to the author, vexed philosophy for centuries - how science, and knowledge itself, is built on a faulty foundation. Criticisms of science, Popper later refutes, say it is built on inductive reasoning. You observe facts and when you see something enough times, you develop a theory. To use the analogy borrowed by Taleb's book "Black Swan", which drove me to find Popper, if you have a theory that there are only white swans and find only white swans for hundreds of years, then you convert it to a natural law due to massive accumulation of evidence. But it only takes one black swan to destroy this natural law. If science is built solely on past observations to predict the future, then you actually can't know anything because one new fact can overturn all knowledge. Popper turns this problem on its head by saying that science, and the search for truth, is actually the attempt to disprove what we know, the constant searching for evidence that is contrary to what we think we know. And that truth is actually unattainable, but we can only get closer and closer over time, less and less wrong. I love the idea of celebrating wrongness as a way to guide your thinking and his embrace of uncertainty as a fundamental aspect of being human, unsettling though it is.
The second area, the evolution of knowledge, was even more fun to read. He seems to say that evolution itself is simply life's efforts to solve problems and that, by extension, life is driven by problem solving. Life transforming from bacteria to more complex forms of life was driven by life adapting to problems, "solving" issues with how to grow and get energy. Over millions of years, animals begin making sounds to communicate, growls and snorts, another problem solving strategy. Eventually, in what he terms World 3 (World 1 is the physical world, World 2 is inside our minds, i.e., thoughts), humans invent language (among other things in World 3), a system that objectively exists but is outside of ourselves and over time evolves in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, creating new problems to solve that we couldn't have anticipated. Math is in World 3, we invented the numbers 1, 2, and 3 to solve some problem, probably to keep track of goblets of beer to feed the workers or something like that, but the invention created new problems like the existence of odd and even numbers, prime numbers and exploding out from there the most complex concepts that even modern computers struggle to solve. And I think, knowledge is created, reason is created, and the search for truth is created with World 3. Art, politics, science, all that makes us human was launched with the creation of World 3. There is plenty more to say on this and frankly, I struggle to capture the implications, but it was fascinating.
The last section is on politics, evidently Popper wrote a devastating argument against Marx, and less successfully Plato, which seems to be founded on the impossibility of predicting the future or designing policy interventions that have the exact intended effects as predicted. This reality creates a terrible cycle for people driven to build a Utopia (Marxists) or those driven to go backwards to some nostalgic past and thus arrest further change, in which the adherents of those faulty ideas are forced to use violence to reach their aims but the goal is unattainable, and thus the spiral to chaos. Popper wants a society built on his view of truth, always being sought but never reached, and an admission that we will often be wrong, have unintended consequences, but where new approaches are welcome because we all know that only through experimentation and trying new things can we ever make life better for humans...or something like that, not sure I am nailing it perfectly here.
Popper dismantles a question that has, according to the author, vexed philosophy for centuries - how science, and knowledge itself, is built on a faulty foundation. Criticisms of science, Popper later refutes, say it is built on inductive reasoning. You observe facts and when you see something enough times, you develop a theory. To use the analogy borrowed by Taleb's book "Black Swan", which drove me to find Popper, if you have a theory that there are only white swans and find only white swans for hundreds of years, then you convert it to a natural law due to massive accumulation of evidence. But it only takes one black swan to destroy this natural law. If science is built solely on past observations to predict the future, then you actually can't know anything because one new fact can overturn all knowledge. Popper turns this problem on its head by saying that science, and the search for truth, is actually the attempt to disprove what we know, the constant searching for evidence that is contrary to what we think we know. And that truth is actually unattainable, but we can only get closer and closer over time, less and less wrong. I love the idea of celebrating wrongness as a way to guide your thinking and his embrace of uncertainty as a fundamental aspect of being human, unsettling though it is.
The second area, the evolution of knowledge, was even more fun to read. He seems to say that evolution itself is simply life's efforts to solve problems and that, by extension, life is driven by problem solving. Life transforming from bacteria to more complex forms of life was driven by life adapting to problems, "solving" issues with how to grow and get energy. Over millions of years, animals begin making sounds to communicate, growls and snorts, another problem solving strategy. Eventually, in what he terms World 3 (World 1 is the physical world, World 2 is inside our minds, i.e., thoughts), humans invent language (among other things in World 3), a system that objectively exists but is outside of ourselves and over time evolves in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, creating new problems to solve that we couldn't have anticipated. Math is in World 3, we invented the numbers 1, 2, and 3 to solve some problem, probably to keep track of goblets of beer to feed the workers or something like that, but the invention created new problems like the existence of odd and even numbers, prime numbers and exploding out from there the most complex concepts that even modern computers struggle to solve. And I think, knowledge is created, reason is created, and the search for truth is created with World 3. Art, politics, science, all that makes us human was launched with the creation of World 3. There is plenty more to say on this and frankly, I struggle to capture the implications, but it was fascinating.
The last section is on politics, evidently Popper wrote a devastating argument against Marx, and less successfully Plato, which seems to be founded on the impossibility of predicting the future or designing policy interventions that have the exact intended effects as predicted. This reality creates a terrible cycle for people driven to build a Utopia (Marxists) or those driven to go backwards to some nostalgic past and thus arrest further change, in which the adherents of those faulty ideas are forced to use violence to reach their aims but the goal is unattainable, and thus the spiral to chaos. Popper wants a society built on his view of truth, always being sought but never reached, and an admission that we will often be wrong, have unintended consequences, but where new approaches are welcome because we all know that only through experimentation and trying new things can we ever make life better for humans...or something like that, not sure I am nailing it perfectly here.
February 23, 2020
This book was recommended by David Deutsch in the bibliography of "The Beginning of Infinity". A slim work, (107 pages), it is very information dense. If you read both books, you will understand how Deutsch drew heavily on Popper's work. Popper was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century when it comes to the clarity and quality of his work, although others such as Wittegenstein drew larger cult followings. The first part of the book discusses Popper's brillant solution to the poblem of induction. In Popper's entire epistemology and philosophy of science, induction is not required. In fact, the source of theories is immaterial - all that matters is if the theories are falsafiable. Theories are created as the result of creative acts to solve problems, not on the basis of induction from observation. All observations, in fact, are theory-ladden. Theories come prior to observation, not the other way around.
The book gets very interesting towards the end, in the discussion of Popper's devastating critique of Marxism and more generally all form of historicism and Utopianism. One also gets a glimpse his passionate, compelling argument for an "open society" and democratic institutions. As acknowledged by the author, the book doesn't get into his Ethics very much, only glimpses are given.
Altogether this is a worthwhile read, sort of like a "Cliff Notes" versison for thoes who don't have the time or patience to wade through Popper's vast actual writings. Some quotes from Popper are included throughout.
The book gets very interesting towards the end, in the discussion of Popper's devastating critique of Marxism and more generally all form of historicism and Utopianism. One also gets a glimpse his passionate, compelling argument for an "open society" and democratic institutions. As acknowledged by the author, the book doesn't get into his Ethics very much, only glimpses are given.
Altogether this is a worthwhile read, sort of like a "Cliff Notes" versison for thoes who don't have the time or patience to wade through Popper's vast actual writings. Some quotes from Popper are included throughout.
November 14, 2020
Examples of topics in this book:
- How science and knowledge in general progress. (Conjecture and criticism)
- Why the famous philosophical "problem of induction" is solved. (We never need justified foundation)
- Why Freud's psychoanalysis is not scientific. (Unfalsifiability)
- "Who should rule?" is a morally wrong question in politics. (Instead, the main question is how to let people remove bad policies/rulers without violence.)
- Why Marxism is wrong? (Future of soceities cannot be determined because future knowledge is inherently unknowable)
All above are discussed in a unified way of thinking.
This book is a very nice introduction to Karl Popper (and David Deutsch).
- How science and knowledge in general progress. (Conjecture and criticism)
- Why the famous philosophical "problem of induction" is solved. (We never need justified foundation)
- Why Freud's psychoanalysis is not scientific. (Unfalsifiability)
- "Who should rule?" is a morally wrong question in politics. (Instead, the main question is how to let people remove bad policies/rulers without violence.)
- Why Marxism is wrong? (Future of soceities cannot be determined because future knowledge is inherently unknowable)
All above are discussed in a unified way of thinking.
This book is a very nice introduction to Karl Popper (and David Deutsch).
June 25, 2017
The father of falsification, Karl Popper, recommends that we formulate theories in clear and transparent ways to expose them unambiguously to refutation. This method of criticism is a constant feedback loop so we never really *know* anything. We're always in the loop: problem--trial solution--measure/expose errors/learn--reformulate problem/discover new ones. Popper is essentially the founding father of lean startup. If a statement or idea can't be tested and disproven with empirical evidence then it isn't science. ****
October 24, 2021
Accessible distillation of Popper's main views. The first 3 chapters discuss his epistemological foundation and provide the reader with a very broad overview of Popper's scientific philosophy. The last few chapters on the open societies are an extension of approach to science on a larger, more anthropocentric examination as well as a critique of dialectical materialism. Good intro to understanding Popper.
April 2, 2018
Engaging and readable summary of Popper's works.
September 16, 2019
Brilliant distillation of Popper's key ideas. Anyone interested in Sir Karl would do well to start here.
February 8, 2020
Excellent introduction to Popper’s philosophy.
September 7, 2021
The basic introduction to Popper's central ideas.
June 15, 2022
A cogent and compact summary of Popper’s views and contributions, from falsification to his argument against Marxism and Utopianism
March 10, 2023
Easy to read. I found myself agreeing with Popper a lot more than I expected.
May 7, 2023
Magee is a great communicator and packs more than is possible (in both senses) in this tiny little book. He makes a good case, and I'm definitely tuning to popper's own books next.
September 19, 2023
This book is a brilliant introduction to Popper's approach to his "critical rationalism" in philosophy and "fragmented societal engineering" in politics.
January 9, 2019
The author has an unfortunate communist interpretation of Popper's ideas towards the final chapters, but otherwise a very interesting read! Not much given on Popper's thoughts on science so I hope to read more about that elsewhere.
Want to read
July 15, 2021In het Nederlands: Popper, Aula 533, 1974.
July 13, 2016
Magee's writings are always very clear and descriptive. That doesn't mean they are easy. To me, a physicist, they are not. I always have to go back and read them a second and third (and sometimes even a 4th time). But he sums up very well what other philosophers (in this case Popper) are saying, in ways that those philosophers themselves cannot do.
Best quote: "All that matters is that one should have an interesting problem and be genuinely trying to solve it."
Best quote: "All that matters is that one should have an interesting problem and be genuinely trying to solve it."
January 1, 2016
Slightly biased going into this as a firm adherent to the parallels of Science and the Arts (I think they are the same thing).
An excellent introduction to Popper's philosophy. Extremely well written, intriguing and engaging text, Magee has adroitly distilled substantial ideas in a way that makes you want more!
I am very excited to start my journey into Popper's works after reading this.
A must for all Artists, Scientists and Sociologists
An excellent introduction to Popper's philosophy. Extremely well written, intriguing and engaging text, Magee has adroitly distilled substantial ideas in a way that makes you want more!
I am very excited to start my journey into Popper's works after reading this.
A must for all Artists, Scientists and Sociologists
August 7, 2012
Product Description
Karl Popper has been hailed as the greatest philosopher of all time and as a thinker whose influence is ackowledged by a variety of scholars. This work demonstrates Popper's importance across the whole range of philosophy and provides an introduction to the main themes of philosophy itself.
March 19, 2007
very readable for Popper enthusiats
March 29, 2007
Anyone who is anyhow interested in Karl poppers philosophy or philosophy itself,and is looking for a good introduction,should not abstain from reading this outstanding piece of work by Magee.
April 20, 2015
A clear, crisp and concise introduction to Karl Popper's philosophy of knowledge science and society.
February 10, 2016
Fantastic, intend to constantly reference and reread this book.
July 13, 2019
Few introductions are a brilliant written as this one. Written by a man who really understands the thinking of Karl Popper and how to make it clear for the reader. 4 1/2 stars.
Shelved as 'biographies'
October 12, 2013(auf deutsch gelesen)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews