Template:Popper-contd

Choose from the Philosophy Menu Bar ▼ HOME INDEX Justice 6.v.25 The Good Life 20.v.25 Hume & Testimony 3.vi.25 1H25 Reflections 17.vi.25 Nietzsche 1 24.ii.25 Nietzsche 2 11.iii.25 Universal Basic Income 25.iii.25 Hegel 22.iv.25 2024 Wrap-Up 10.x.24 Democracy 14.i.25 Civilisation? 28.i.25 Compulsory Voting? 11.ii.25 Berlin and Freedom 15.x.24 Nussbaum, Sen and Capability 29.x.24 Slavery Reparations 12.xi.24 Rawls 26.xi.24 Assisted Suicide 11.vi.24 Popper and Evolution 20.viii.24 Popper continued 17.ix.24 Berlin and Romanticism 1.x.24 Marx 19.iii.24 Kant and Knowledge 16.iv.24 Kant and Morality 30.iv.24 Education and Religion 14.v.24 Hobbes & Security 23.i.24 From Locke to Mill 6.ii.24 Rousseau: Social Contract 20.ii.24 Rousseau and Education 5.iii.24 AI and Ethics 31.x.23 Aristotle and AI 14.xi.23 Autumn 2023 Review 28.xi.23 Democracy 9.i.24 Private Education 5.ix.23 The Very Elderly 19.ix.23 Justifiable Law-breaking 3.x.23 Moral Authority 17.x.23 The Wells School of Philosophy Roll Call 17th September 2024, Hare Lane, 1000-1200 hrs: Tutors: Linda (LW), Steve (SW) Pupils: Patricia (PM), Alexis (AN), David (DR), Margie (MR), Colin (CS) Scribe: Gavin (GW) Apologies: John (JE), Viki (VR), Howard (HS), Ray (RT) The homework set We have enjoyed reading a couple of articles that we would like to share with you. Both are highly relevant to our ongoing discussions of the relationship being scientifically based theories of evolution and philosophy, and, in particular, how Karl Popper's take on the nature of the scientific method, and on broader cultural/societal considerations, fits with this relationship. You will recall that Popper was a strong advocate of the 'open society': citizens having the right, and opportunity, to challenge the views and policies, of political leaders. He would almost certainly have approved of the citizen assembly approach to achieve this creative, radical, participation in political decision-making. Deliberative democracy in action, augmenting the blunt instrument of democracy being limited to citizens' participation in democracy being restricted to voting. Here is a link to the obituary of a deliberative democracy practitioner, Simon Burall, who died recently, and at a sadly young age. It's well worth a read: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/aug/07/simon-burall-obituary At last week's meeting we touched briefly on the issue of AI and its potential effect on the evolution of the human race. Here is a link to an article written by Yuval Noah Harari, which we found both prescient, raising key issues across the board, and very readable: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/24/yuval-noah-harari-ai-book-extract-nexus In reading both articles you could frame what is being said in the context of Popper's perspective: looking for ways in which 'conventional wisdom', etc, can be falsified to create a clearer view of what is actually happening, and to prompt more radical, yet relevant, solutions. We hope the extended break has given everyone plenty of time to digest the depth and breadth of Bryan Magee's excellent book which captures the way Popper links his distinctive take on the philosophy of the mechanisms of science with his broader metaphysics, in particular his perception of the evolution of man as a problem solver. We have thoroughly enjoyed re-reading this little book which covers, and relates to, so many of the themes we have covered over the years. It has prompted me radically to reconsider my views of what philosophy offers, and how it operates. Probably without realising it, I was an 'essentialist'; pursuing the Platonic task of endeavouring to pin down what we mean by, what lies at the heart of, ideas and things. What Popper has done is open my eyes to a world of constant, growing and generally unpredictable change, in which there are no certainties—where it is impossible to prove anything, only to confirm falsity. And this is liberating, giving great scope for creativity; especially in the area of human social relations and politics. It acts against the narrow-minded building of pet theories, the development of 'conventional wisdom', and encourages, via the exercise of criticism, the development of new thoughts. Philosophy for Popper is something you do; to recognise change and harness it. So I was impressed. Were you? What Magee's book succeeds in doing, for us, is to bring together—starting with Popper's philosophy of science—the various strands of his philosophy into a coherent and powerful whole. There are telling connections made between the the asymmetries of verification and falsification in the testing of scientific hypotheses, and, in the area of utilitarianism, between the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain. In the former, seeking verification is ultimately impossible, given the problem of induction, and risks a myopic, limiting, approach to scientific discovery. In the latter, there is no continuum between happiness and pain; perceptions and desires of happiness are individualistic. In Popper's view it is far more productive to focus on how specific pain and unhappiness can be overcome than to pursue some utopian concept of the greatest happiness for all, with all its potential for unexpected consequences. For Popper, there is no overall plan for humanity, or indeed the world. Only constant change; which to some extent we can influence, maybe harness, in scientific and social/political developments. We can't use history to predict the future. Hence the fierce criticism of Marx, whose predictions have been so readily falsified. But out of this criticism can come radically different approaches. No doubt you will disagree with at least some of these thoughts on Magee's book and Popper's philosophical approach. Good. Only through criticism can advances be made, as Popper might say.... Some questions you might care to ponder before Tuesday's get-together: How might you capture Popper's approach to philosophy in a one-liner? An example: 'Better wrong than right' How does Popper's view of how scientific progress is made differ from the traditional/Newtonian approach? How does Popper link/inter-relate the natural and human worlds in terms of how best philosophical thought, and process, are undertaken? Does Popper present a case for social democracy which meets his end of an open society, the banishment of totalitarianism in all its various forms? Would he approve of citizens' assemblies and PR? What makes Popper criticise Plato? Does the Popper analysis resolve key paradoxes in politics… for example: intolerance, freedom, democracy, sovereignty? Introduction(SW) Steve recommends Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie. The author aims to bust a few myths: for instance, palm oil is a super-efficient crop. Will over-population be the end of us? "No", she says. Philosophy now should be more active. Our awareness of our ignorance grows with our knowledge. With ignorance comes, we hope, curiosity. Popper was an indeterminist. 100% precision is a spurious goal. Our pursuit of meaning is endless. You can’t prove anything. The world is extremely fluid. He took a holistic view of the world. Popper said we take too much for granted. He said there are asymmetries: verification and falsification; pain and happiness. Each member of these pairs isn't a polar opposite on the same continuum as the other member. The discovery of black swans enables us to improve our knowledge. We can refine our knowledge by disproving that water always boils at 100°C. Happiness is a vague concept. If we research happiness, we will find many utopian views. If we instead investigate pain, there are many current examples: child poverty, for instance. We can do something practical about it now rather than, for example, launch a Royal Commission. Popper, like Darwin, didn’t believe in an overall plan for the world. All is flux. If things are bad, you should try to overcome it. He was anti-fascist and, for a long time, a social democrat. He did not believe in absolute freedom or absolute tolerance. Democracy is not an absolute good, because it can lead to the election of a tyrant. Popper identified these paradoxes: of democracy, tolerance, freedom, economic freedom, sovereignty, and of taking evasive action in a predictable future. Discussion The search for simple solutions The vast majority of the population want certainty, which Popper doesn’t offer.(DR) Trump plays to the population's desire for certainty.(LW) Children love rules.(MR) Certainty enables the propagation of control. Why do dictators have so many working class supporters?(AN) Why should we want to resolve the differences in the five paradoxes? The search for truth is a journey.(CS) There isn’t a solution. You have to work together.(AN) Michael Mosley's death has left a gap in the market for education in healthy living. CS's relatives are proposing a programme to plug that gap, but proof of its efficacy will take 30-40 years.(CS) 'Just One Thing' was an easy message to take on board among a sea of many messages.(SW) Swamping people with information erodes their confidence.(LW) Schools are starting to ban smartphones to prevent pupils being deluged.(DR) When you're a teenager, you think you know everything, because you are unaware of so much.(CS) The recent programme about Freddie Flintoff taking disadvantaged children on a cricketing trip to India where they gained much confidence was inspiring.(LW) Governments With regard to Popper's paradoxes: economic freedom issues are not getting fixed. There must be some limits to people's behaviour. How much do we tolerate? Popper doesn’t rule out violence as a solution. Hungary is becoming a worrying situation; it's at the heart of Europe. Orbán is a supporter of Putin and Trump. Are his people happy?(DR) The root of our problem is that we have a monetarist society rather than a capitalist one.(CS) Government can’t make things happen. A pathway to implementing any plan needs to be agreed.(AN) Proportional representation would give us more sense of involvement in what happens.(DR) Government and the Civil Service don’t have great implementation skills.(AN) The Civil Service waits for the minister to draft a plan. The Civil Service has become more political today. Reports from civil servants indicate they are pleased with the new government: it is asking the civil servants what they think of things.(DR) There is a tension between the need to plan and the need to handle unanticipated events such as right-wing riots.(SW) We need to allow for chaos theory.(LW) In Britain, the courts stopped Boris. But in Nazi Germany, Hitler purged institutions to prevent the establishment obstructing his plans.(MR) It's too late to make amendments to the US Constitution now. Most Americans are against changing it.(AN) The housing situation in Singapore is good. So are citizens happy with their government?(MR) In the UK everyone should be entitled to decent housing, but not necessarily not to home ownership.(SW) In Manchester, they are successfully putting housing first, in order to rescue drug addicts etc.(LW) "Low Crime Doesn't Mean No Crime" is a campaign slogan for Singapore, which has some of the lowest crime rates in the world.(AN) But in a highly controlled society, we can lead our lives in safety.(SW) Books Referenced: Hannah Ritchie (2024). Not the End of the World. ‎ Vintage. Bryan Magee (reprinted 1985). Popper. Fontana Modern Masters. The text of the book is at http://claygate.org.uk/index.php/Popper_by_Bryan_Magee Tim Snyder (2024). On Freedom. ‎ Bodley Head. Podcast Referenced: * Rory Stewart (2024). The Long History of… Ignorance . BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0020xyx