Karl “falsification” Popper was dogmatic, but was that such a bad thing?
|August 29, 2018||Posted by News under Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Physics|
Science writer John Horgan well remembers going to interview Popper, who had strong views on subjectivism in physics:
Words poured from him so rapidly and with so much momentum that I began to lose hope that I could ask my prepared questions. “I am over 90, and I can still think,” he declared, as if I doubted it. Popper emphasized that he had known all the titans of twentieth-century science: Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg. Popper blamed Bohr, whom he knew “very well,” for having introduced subjectivism into physics. Bohr was “a marvelous physicist, one of the greatest of all time, but he was a miserable philosopher, and one couldn’t talk to him. He was talking all the time, allowing practically only one or two words to you and then at once cutting in.”
For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”
Popper was proud of his strained relationship with his fellow philosophers, including Wittgenstein, with whom he had a run-in in 1946… John Horgan, “The Paradox of Karl Popper” at Scientific American
Are we better off with people who try to talk themselves into believing that there is multiverse out there, when there isn’t even evidence, let alone an opportunity for Popperian falsification?
Note: Karl Popper (1902–1994)
See also: John Horgan asks at Scientific American if science is hitting a wall
Evolutionary biologists today want Popper’s name but not his game
Popper didn’t repent and believe Darwin after all
How to talk yourself into believing in a multiverse It’s becoming obvious that post-modern science will have its multiverse irrespective of evidence from nature and will prefer it and its component beliefs to evidence from nature. That is why some of us think that the multiverse is science’s assisted suicide.