Reasons and Causes

[mattbballman31]

Yes he was. Science, theories and hypothesis are not determinist in nature. They test the predictability and consistency of the determinism of nature, which is why theories and hypothesis are not 'proven,' but falsified.

Theory and reality

Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true.

Hey moron,

I see . . . you're trying to support the thesis that "Popper was a determinist" with a statement about the relationship between theory and reality? Because, obviously, that's totally relevant and convincing! lol I mean, who needs actual evidence or arguments when you can just throw in a quote about theory and reality, right? And sure, it's not like the statement even mentions determinism or Popper's views on it, but why let that get in the way of a good argument? Oh, and let's not forget the cherry on top: a snarky comment about theories and hypotheses not being determinist in nature, as if that somehow proves anything. Bravo, I'm convinced - Popper must have been a determinist, because you said so in the vaguest and most irrelevant way possible.

I see our scientific theories as human inventionsnets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theorieseven as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theorieswhich is of our own makingdoes not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newtons theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called prima facie deterministic. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple. [section 15] [/cite]

Well, clearly Popper's statement that our scientific theories are "nets designed by us to catch the world" and that they should not be mistaken for a complete representation of reality is just a cover-up for the fact that he was secretly a determinist all along! I mean, obviously, his admission that our theories reflect our fallibility and that their simplicity does not necessarily correspond to the intrinsic simplicity of the world is just a smokescreen to hide his true belief in the all-powerful laws of nature that dictate every single event in the universe. And of course, his statement that the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is related to its simplicity is just a clever way of saying that simplicity equals determinism, because why bother with all that pesky evidence and logical reasoning when you can just make wild assumptions based on the perceived simplicity of a theory? Clearly, Popper was not only a determinist, but a master of deception as well!

[shunyadragon]

Hey moron,

I see . . . you're trying to support the thesis that "Popper was a determinist" with a statement about the relationship between theory and reality? Because, obviously, that's totally relevant and convincing! lol I mean, who needs actual evidence or arguments when you can just throw in a quote about theory and reality, right? And sure, it's not like the statement even mentions determinism or Popper's views on it, but why let that get in the way of a good argument? Oh, and let's not forget the cherry on top: a snarky comment about theories and hypotheses not being determinist in nature, as if that somehow proves anything. Bravo, I'm convinced - Popper must have been a determinist, because you said so in the vaguest and most irrelevant way possible.

Well, clearly Popper's statement that our scientific theories are "nets designed by us to catch the world" and that they should not be mistaken for a complete representation of reality is just a cover-up for the fact that he was secretly a determinist all along! I mean, obviously, his admission that our theories reflect our fallibility and that their simplicity does not necessarily correspond to the intrinsic simplicity of the world is just a smokescreen to hide his true belief in the all-powerful laws of nature that dictate every single event in the universe. And of course, his statement that the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is related to its simplicity is just a clever way of saying that simplicity equals determinism, because why bother with all that pesky evidence and logical reasoning when you can just make wild assumptions based on the perceived simplicity of a theory? Clearly, Popper was not only a determinist, but a master of deception as well!

Insults, intentional ignorance of science and the citations I provided and the Modus Opperandi, of those that cling to ancient tribal mythic scriptures fro answers to everything.

Nothing more than I already cited to understand 'determinism' in not only the view of Popper, but ALL scientists in ALL disciplines of science.

Yes he was. Science, theories and hypothesis are not determinist in nature. They test the predictability and consistency of the determinism of nature, which is why theories and hypothesis are not 'proven,' but falsified.

Theory and reality

Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true.

Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/researchers/francois/RESEARCH/RESEARCH_NOTES/SCIENTIFIC_NOTES/a-case-for-indeterminism-by-Karl-Popper.html#:~:text=No%20theory%20is%20determinist ic,-Given%20the%20principle&text=In%20particular%2C%20 every%20theory%20based,to%20Popper%2C%20be%20calle d%20deterministic.&text=If%20the%20task%20demands% 20that,the%20theory%20cannot%20be%20used.

“I see our scientific theories as human inventions–nets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theories–even as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theories–which is of our own making–does not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newton’s theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called ‘prima facie deterministic’. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple.” [section 15]

© Copyright Original Source

[mattbballman31]

Dude, you're blind. It's actually kind of sad. I'd actually be really curious to see what your reading comprehension scores would be on a standardized test like the GRE.

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with Popper being a determinist; he is discussing the limitations of scientific theories, and how the simplicity of a theory does not necessarily reflect the underlying complexity or determinism of the natural world. Popper was actually known for rejecting determinism in science and advocating for indeterminism. The quote starts out by noting that the world is complex, and that the simplicity of scientific theories is not necessarily a reflection of the intrinsic simplicity of the world. He's saying that even though some scientific theories may appear prima facie deterministic, this does not necessarily mean that the world is actually deterministic. So, he's saying that those theories that appear to be deterministic are often simpler and more easily testable than those that aren't, but that this does not necessarily mean that the world is deterministic. Then he CAUTIONS against inferring from the success of deterministic theories that the world is inherently deterministic, just as it is not justifiable to infer from the success of simple theories that the world is intrinsically simple.

[shunyadragon]

Dude, you're blind. It's actually kind of sad. I'd actually be really curious to see what your reading comprehension scores would be on a standardized test like the GRE.

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with Popper being a determinist; he is discussing the limitations of scientific theories, and how the simplicity of a theory does not necessarily reflect the underlying complexity or determinism of the natural world. Popper was actually known for rejecting determinism in science and advocating for indeterminism. The quote starts out by noting that the world is complex, and that the simplicity of scientific theories is not necessarily a reflection of the intrinsic simplicity of the world. He's saying that even though some scientific theories may appear prima facie deterministic, this does not necessarily mean that the world is actually deterministic. So, he's saying that those theories that appear to be deterministic are often simpler and more easily testable than those that aren't, but that this does not necessarily mean that the world is deterministic. Then he CAUTIONS against inferring from the success of deterministic theories that the world is inherently deterministic, just as it is not justifiable to infer from the success of simple theories that the world is intrinsically simple.

True Popper was not a rigid mechanical determinist that determinism can be proven, but the following bold accurately describes Popper's view on Determinism, which it cannot be proven nor accepted as simply true. He is the father of Methodological Naturalism which is the foundation of modern science in ALL disciplines.

Theory and reality

Popper, in the following, describes the relationship between a theory and the reality the theory is supposed to explain. In particular, not all properties of the theory, however successful, should be taken as a property of the world. I think that, however, it is not unreasonable to accept such inference, by default and until it is proven incorrect, as long as we do not claim this inference absolutely true. [which science cannot simply prove anything]

Source: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanogr...%20determinist ic,-Given%20the%20principle&text=In%20particular%2C%20 every%20theory%20based,to%20Popper%2C%20be%20calle d%20deterministic.&text=If%20the%20task%20demands% 20that,the%20theory%20cannot%20be%20used.



“I see our scientific theories as human inventions–nets designed by us to catch the world. [...] What we aim at is truth: we test our theories in the hope of eliminating those which are not true. In this way we may succeed in improving our theories–even as instruments: in making nets which are better and better adapted to catch our fish, the real world. Yet they will never be perfect instruments for this purpose. They are rational nets of our own making, and should not be mistaken for a complete representation of the real world in all its aspects; not even if they are highly successful ; not even if they appear to yield excellent approximations to reality. If we keep clearly before our minds that our theories are our own work; that we are fallible; and that our theories reflect our fallibility, then we shall doubt whether general features of our theories, such as their simplicity, or their prima facie deterministic character, correspond to features of the real world. [...] The world, as we know it, is highly complex; and although it may possess structural aspects which are simple in some sense or other, the simplicity of some of our theories–which is of our own making–does not entail the intrinsic simplicity of the world. The situation with regard to determinism is similar. Newton’s theory, consisting of the law of inertia, the law of gravity, etc., may be true, or very approximately true, i.e., the world may be as the theory asserts it is. But there is no statement of determinism in this theory; the theory nowhere asserts that the world is determined; rather it is the theory itself which as that character which I called ‘prima facie deterministic’. Now the prima facie deterministic character of a theory is closely related to its simplicity; prima facie deterministic theories are comparatively easily testable, and the tests may be made more and more precise and severe. [...] At the same time, it seems no more justifiable to infer from their success that the world has an intrinsically deterministic character than to infer that the world is intrinsically simple.” [section 15]

© Copyright Original Sourc