Talk:Critical rationalism

message: I realize Hayek is known and very well regarded among critical rationalists, (mainly because of jeremy shearmur), but he is not a critical rationalist. He never spoke about it, or engaged with the field itself, or progressed it; if a link to Hayek be made it should be made indirectly through linking this page to Shearmur. The hayek link is a plug, and not in anyway furthering of the knowledge of critical rationalism. May I suggest that it be taken down. (194.80.232.158 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayek

message: *Critical rationalism is not a generalization of Popper's falsificationism (but a kind of transfer).
*Falsificationism is applicable only to scientific theories: A falsification is the contradiction between theoretical prediction and experience.
*Falsificationism must not be mixed up with fallibilism. 
*What Popper wrote about critical rationalism (e.g. in his The Open Society) is based on his fallibilism... 
*All sections in this article "critical rationalism" can only be understood from the view of an ubiquitous fallibilism. Therefore there is a general problem of justification, therefore his and Bartley's concept of universal criticism even in the non-scientific fields (where no scientific predictions are possible) of politics, moral, social life, and so on.
If nobody has the time to make corrections, I will be glad to do so and to return to this entry as soon as possible.--hjn 12:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsificationism 

message: The second so-called pitfall should be taken out of the text as it misleads the reader. A number of authors discussed against that thesis of Popper and Miller (P & M) and showed that the implication of the proof of P & M [1983] was not the same as it was interpreted by P & M (see Elby (1994) and its references).
T
Andrew Elby (March 1994): "Contentious Contents: For Inductive Probability" in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(1): 193--200.
Kayaalp 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying Andrew Elby is an irresponsible academic bureaucrat? ThVa (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popper & Miller thesis is controversial if not invalid 

message: In my view it would be promising to translate the german article which is indeed quite excellent.
Is there anybody who would endorse the translation? I am actually a native german speaker...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidandur (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maybe the translation could be done by us outside of the article, so someone can proofread it. I am also a native German speaker. Especially the Society and Ethics (Gesellschaft und Ethik) is important, because supporters of critical rationalism appear to think a lot of practical implementation and its meaning in other contexts than theory of science, which is what the English article covers so far. I mostly have done smaller changes on Wikipedia, so I hope someone with more experience could give me a hint on how such things are done. Is there a place to put in progress articles/translations until they reach a certain quality? A link to a help text related to this would be great, because I don't really know what to look for.--Athaba (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: GERMAN TRANSLATION

message: The second sentence in "Criticism, not support" is: "Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated." I submit that this sentence either needs more preceding support or needs to be removed completely. What is meant by "contrast" and what is meant by "normative" in this context? The sentence does not explain, it attempts enrichment, but almost certainly falls completely flat.  If "contrast" is meant to as comparing predictions with empirical results, it does nothing but confuse. With respect to "normative", what "norm" is being used for evaluation?  If it is Popperian falsifiability, then this part of the sentence is adds nothing.  If there is an additional norm Critical Rationalism brings to bear in addition to falsifiability, then such a norm needs to be named.
Either there is some sophisticated understanding that motivates this sentence--in which case additional information needs to be added to explain it--or it the sentence is (at least, in effect) confused, and should be removed. TBadonsky (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dense Sentence 

message: I suggest that we better explain falsifiability and falsifiable in some section or paragraph. It should be defined in such a way that it could be used more comfortably in sentences like this one in the article: 
Normally, one would write that a sentence is considered empirical if it falsifiable, not potentially falsifiable. This is because the definition of falsifiable as given by Popper includes the "potentially". He says explicitly that "falsifiable" means "falsifiable in principle". In  fact, much more than that is included in the epistemological notion of falsifiability. It also includes a separation/connection with the actual process of observation. It's not the same thing at all as the naive notion of falsifiability.
Here are some examples that explains the separation/connection with the actual process of observation. The formal statement "this duck weigh two tons" logically make sense - we can parse it and attach a meaning to it. This is the logical part. Not only it makes sense logically, but we further accept it as a valid observation for the purpose of falsification, because in the background knowledge we have the notion of mass and how to measure the mass of any object. In contrast, the statement "this man is immortal", even though we only replaced the property "weigh two tons"  by "is immortal" and we can parse it and understand it, it is not accepted as a valid observation. The reason is not that it is impossible, because a duck of two tons is also impossible. It is because in our background knowledge, there is no measurement, no process that leads to the property "immortal". The epistemological notion of falsifiability includes the fact that the basic statements that are used to falsify a theory are conventional, but not any convention, a convention that corresponds to our background knowledge about observations. This is very simple, very basic, but it must be mentioned.  
Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perhaps falsifiability should be better explained.