Karl Popper and Justified True Belief

There aren't enough videos on YouTube about Popper! Here are the others:

http://www.youtube.com/user/curi42 (Popperian epistemology videos)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-0Kfb5khk (about Critical Rationalism, Popper's philosophy)


To learn more about Karl Popper and critical rationalism, check out:

http://www.curi.us/archives/list_category/57

http://www.criticalrationalism.net/

http://fallibleideas.com/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Karl Popper
• epistemology
• theory of knowledge
• justified true belief
• jtb
• critical rationalism
• philosophy

[idontgiveashit0930]

I think you should do more of these quick summarized philosophy vids

[LulieTanett]

@idontgiveashit0930 Any suggestions for which topics I should cover in future videos? :)

[henryporter101]

A very well made and well argued video.I've read Popper and was searching for a flaw in this video-for the reasons you've outlined-but I failed.So my failure is your success.

[jamesthenabignumber]

Great video! I am always glad to find someone who understands Popper. Sometimes I think there are only very few of us!

[rafaelwaa]

Great video !

[dfpolis]

Contd. As truth is correspondence with reality, in being aware of reality acting, we are by definition aware of truth. (4) Not all knowledge is hypothetical. Some in by abstraction from reality. It is intrinsically impossible to falsify statements, such as 2+2=4, of this kind. Therefore, falsification has limited applicability. (5) Certitude need not be a feeling. It can reflect knowledge of methodological adequacy. This is not inerrant, just adequate to be sure we are right. Peace, Dennis

[dfpolis]

A good video, with some problems. (1) Justified true belief is not traditional. Doxa in this context in Plato is not belief, but judgement. (2) The primary meaning of knowledge is awareness of reality. Other meanings, like knowledge in books, are derivative on this, & so knowledge by analogy of attribution. (3) Justification need not be by other theories, so there need be no infinite regress. It can be by experience, which is our awareness of reality acting on us. Contd.

[participant706]

@LulieTanett The problem of induction and falsifiability.

[LulieTanett]

@analyticaa What's the most persuasive argument from those works you cite? Or what's a good one about it?

[analyticaa]

@top414141 Wow. Despite years of academic training and a deep respect for toleration and civility, I simply want to remark you must be utterly devoid of any intelligence whatsoever. Just the otherday I heard someone say, "Oh yea man, I know Nietzsche, I haven't read his stuff, but I know Nietzsche." Could you be the same person? To be clear, I'm not upset with your comment, just baffled as to the stupidity of some individuals. I know that is harsh and I feel bad for saying but, wow. Incroyable!

[analyticaa]

@LulieTanett Read JL Mackie's Inventing Ethics or Richard Joyce's The Myth of Morality. Both of their arguments are fairly short, the first few chapters in each book (the rest is devoted toward "inventing ethics" or "moral fictionalism", but this isn't necessary to understand the argument for Moral Error theory. Actually if you are some sort of subjectivist, look up Harman (though I wouldn't advise taking up a position if you aren't informed on it :)).

[LulieTanett]

@analyticaa We don't need justification for something to count as knowledge: I was saying that instead of justification, the important thing is *whether people understand it's a solution to that particular problem*. If people have a theory about something, but don't realise that theory *applies to* curing cancer, then those people are lacking knowledge of how to cure cancer. (Rather, they contain some knowledge of how to cure cancer, but they don't have the knowledge of how it applies.)