History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)

Book Description

Recorded history is a finely-woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events predating the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of evidence that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the eleventh century. This book details events that are substantiated by hard facts and logic, and validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources.

Customer Reviews:

Calculations are only as good as your numbers.......2007-08-03

Yes, we can all agree that mainstream history is nearly 100% BS due to politics, economics, ego, problems with dating techniques, and various conspiracies. Agreed. But, I've been researching the distinct possibility that human history (in terms of civilizations) are much more ancient than we've been told, so coming across this book was very interesting to me. I wondered how Fomenko could be wrong (if at all) because he is very persuasive in his presentations. Then it dawned on me. If at previous times in prehistory, due to the various catastrophies that are well documented (comets, asteroids, planetary disruptions, plasma discharge, pole reversals, etc) the Earth was in a different position in relation to the sun, different tilt on its axis, different orbit, different rotation (in terms of velocity and DIRECTION), and the continents were in different positions, then would this not cause the ancients to see the sky (constellations) differently? In other words, is Fomenko making erronious assumptions about the physics of the Earth in pre-history, which then corrupt his data with regards to dating the relevant astrology? The last event to seriously disrupt our planet occured roughly 3500 years ago, according to other good researchers, so is it possible Fomenko has been confused by this? The vastly different physics of our planet in the not so distant past may explain this confusion, which is not to say the "mainstream" version of history is correct; on the contrary. I am not an expert in these fields, but wanted to see if this idea could spark discussion.

Pants on fire?.......2007-07-19

Will people ever read before spamming? Yes, Jesuits could not rewrite world history alone, they had help. Anyway, Dr Prof Acad A.Fomenko does not point to jesuits as the driving force of world wide history manipulation in published volumes 1,2,3;, actually he barely mentions the poor devils. Check it with 'Search inside' feature, please. China is rarely mentioned either, in fact, Dr Fomenko is completely eurocentric. Right, his theory contradicts all mainstream schools of history, because in their actual state they are all built on blatantly erroneus chronology. You don't need a mysterious cabal (conspiracy) to falsify history, the falsification is its modus operandi. It is inherent to history(ians) to falsify (distort) events, as it is inherent to humans to boast as it is inherent to power (authority) to legimize itself by referrring to glorious past made to its own order. Dr Prof Fomenko and team have identified scores of instances of such manipulation in Russian, European, etc.. history, and delivered valid statistical proof thereof. His own 'reconstruction' is completely another story. Forget c14 as a valid method of dating. W.Libby has initially discovered a brilliant method of INDEPENDENT dating. Too bad, c14 method has become a joke after a forced marrige with dendrochronology with consensual chronological scale inbuilt. Radiocarbon method can't stand blind tests, but is so very productive as a rubberstamp.

Accepted History & Chronology Must Be Changed. .......2007-04-09

There is no doubt that history as most know it is a sham, & institution's version of History both University & Church is fradulent & inaccurate. Everything was established with an agenda, The real "Dark Ages" are now when we have access to incredible amounts of information past authorities & more important 'common folk' didn't have but our institutions & educators are slow to evolve because of what has ignorantly & arrogantly been taught for too long. This is on many subjects not just Chronology.

For anyone to question "Why would a Mathematician have anything credible to say of History?" The answer is from Dr. Fomenko's preface in the book: "It would be worthwhile to remind the reader that in the XVI-XVII century Chronology was considered to be a subdivision of Mathematics." These volumes could possibly be some of the most important works to date & should be read by everyone with an interest in History, especially professors & educators who have a duty to the public. I have read both books & must say that 'Chronology 1' has some very eye opening & revolutionary information. Even if these volumes are part true the implications are profound & opens the doors to further investigations & questions which must be done. I speak several different lanquages & must say the logic Dr. Fomenko uses with "inflection" of words & words being read from left to right in one region & right to left in another then written backwards, the removal of vowels & get down to basics of words, or different cities & locations having the same name etc. is correct. Vowel usage has always been optional & varied, actually complicating linquistics & study. The first thing one has to understand is that words never had a fixed spelling in history like we do now, the spelling of words was mutable & regional, as well as names & titles of people were vast, varied & changed, NOTHING WAS FIXED or understood linear. Matters of Life & Death as well as financial profiteering yesterday & today were & are made with ignorant, illogical & conspiratorial views of history & reality, it's time people get closer to the Truth & society collectively grow up.

Very Interesting.......2007-03-07

It is a good proposal and I believe it will mature into something even better in the future. I think it deserves to be read.

History as Science Fiction.......2007-01-10

Anatoly Fomenko has written a very intriguing book, full of pictures, charts, and computer 'proof' of his thesis: backwards of AD900 we don't really know what happened or when. Between AD900 and AD1600 there is more certainty, but there is still a lot of fuzzy ground, and things don't get reliable until we get past the 1600's where the printing press made it very difficult for the perpetrators of this timeline manipulation to change anything that had been committed to print. The Dark Ages did not happen. Books were burned for a reason. One organization has doubled the actual length of its existence by expanding the real chronology. Read why.

I had always wondered why Christ died about AD33 and yet men waited until the 11th century to form the Knights Templar, the Cathars, etc and go after the Holy Land by force. Why the 1000 year gap? Turns out there wasn't more than a 10-12 year gap and he proves it using astronomy. This also implies that the planet is not as old as we have been told, and current Christian and other creationist scientists are already championing that idea without being aware of Fomenko's book. The two groups, creationist scientists and the Russian mathematical analysts corroborate each other. Fascinating.

Of course, all this flies in the face of what we have been told traditionally is the 'proper' chronology of western civilization, and most readers will experience 'cognitive dissonance' in reading this book. It means that our history going backwards from AD1600 becomes progressively more incorrect and unreliable until it cannot be trusted at all... in the space of 700-800 years.

Naturally, the curious, open-minded reader will want to know WHO did this, WHY, and did any of the events we think of as really ancient ever happen?
Dr. Fomenko is a respected scientist/mathematician at Moscow State University who has already answered these questions to the satisfaction of his initially skeptical colleagues. Most of them are now believers, a few still refuse to believe (the usual diehards), and of course the western press has ignored Fomenko's work -- for obvious reasons when you read the book. The ones who perpetrated this chronology ruse have a lot to answer for. They are still with us. That's why this book is a well-kept secret.

I gave the book a 4-star rating because I was unable to check out some of his claims; those I checked were as he said. But if even 1/3 of his claims are true, this punches a big hole in what we think is our history, the meaning of western civilization, our educational process (for repeating the ruse as gospel), and the trustworthiness of the organization that perpetrated this ruse, well-intentioned or not.

This book relates to current research into a Young Earth paradigm, to John Keel's discoveries about our planet, and Fr Malachi Martin's insights (in his now out-of-print books). We are indeed sheep who are manipulated and kept ignorant -- for a reason. While knowing what these men have to say may be the "booby prize" (as in: 'what can you do with this knowledge?'), it will provide interesting reading. Didn't someone say: "...and the Truth will set you free."?? For you to judge if this book contains the truth.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)

Average customer rating:

A philosphical classic
Tritium.
Very interesting
Popper's magnum opus
A philosopher's view of science

The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)
Karl Popper
Manufacturer: Routledge
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Logic & Language | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

Food Science | Agricultural Sciences | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0415278449

Book Description

When first published in 1959, this book revolutionized contemporary thinking about science and knowledge. It remains the one of the most widely read books about science to come out of the twentieth century.

Customer Reviews:

A philosphical classic.......2007-06-18

Not exactly light reading, but a great reference work, and a clear expostion of Popper's Falsificationism. This methodology is widely regarded as the leading tool for demarcating between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

Tritium........2007-05-07

"what do you do with your time once the truth is already known?". Taken from Mr. Tritium's review. WHAT????????????????????????????????????????
If you are aware of the truth, then please let the rest of humanity in on the secret my friend! LOL. This is obviously somebody with a defeatist attitude toward science. The Truth with a capital T? hmmmm. Who NOW acknowledges Marxism,or Freudianism as science? Marxism was first and foremost an ECONOMIC THEORY. Economics has progressed, but I would think most scientist would agree it's not truely a science in the same category of the hard sciences. Freudianism can't be falsified because it involves the introspections of the subjective person. Hence it's not worth pursueing and has been replaced with neuroscience and cognitive science. That's when Popper comes in with falsifiability. Has not phlogiston, lumniferous ether, immutability in species and teleology been falsified? Yes they have. One could go on and on about falsified theories. That is surely progress. When has science proposed that it's theories are known with utter certainty? It has always been provisional and contingent. What the hell would be the sense in engaging in science if you "discover" or forumulate a hypothesis for investigation but then say, "Oh wait, the truth is known." Post Modernism started long before Popper. Post Modernism can be traced to Neitzsche and William James as well among earilier philosophers. The one thing I can never understand about people who critisize science is that they ASSUME scientist claim they know the Truth regarding everything. Known as scientism in theological and philosophical circles. I think I smell a christian apologist wolf in sheep's clothing here. The book still stands as being quite valid along with it's ideas.

Very interesting.......2006-12-24

I have to ask myself, "What is the basis for my scientific knowledge?" On a daily basis, as I am a chemist. I have often been struck by arguments for "induction" as lacking credibility, because how can one argue of probabilities with an unknown sample size? Popper argues that a proposing scientific hypothesis is an inductive act, but it is a creative act not a logical one, but that scientific knowledge is dedective.

I agree with him. The nature of science is such that one must put for statements about how the world works and test them. A scientist should always try to find a way of proving himself or herself wrong. If the predictions of the test are shown to be false, then the hypothesis must be false. That is the basis of scientific knowledge. The rest, the best theories we have are just "working models" and we can never justify why they work. They're simply our best working models now.

I don't find Popper's argument disheartening. Popper points out that we don't have to justify our search for explanations of the world, because they may do us benefit (if we happened to live in a world with stable physical laws, for instance).

I think many scientists would fundamentally agree that the laws of nature can never really be proven. They can't, but they speak volumes about what is relevant to us as a species (which is why Popper's argument that "induction" is creative is so interesting). All Popper asks of a scientific hypothesis is that it can, in principle, be demonstrated false by experience.

This is by far one of the most interesting and (I feel) important books I've ever read.

Popper's magnum opus.......2006-11-23

The Logic of Scientific Discovery is in my view Karl Popper's finest work. When I studied science I was amazed at the insight Popper had into the scientific method of inquiry, and I admired his refusal to accept intellectual garbage.

While Popper has come under strong attack from both scientists and philosophers for several shortcomings in his work, in my view Popper has framed one of the most important studies of scientific knowledge and how it is gained, and the difference between science and non-science.

I agree with Popper's argument that the key feature of scientific theories is that they are 'falsifiable.' By this Popper simply meant that a scientific theory, even if beautiful, can be shown wrong by empirical observation. While this account is no doubt oversimplified and leaves out the key social and historical dimensions to science (which thinkers such as Kuhn addressed later on), this principle remains central to science; as Feynman said, 'If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.' The fallibility of science in Popper's view was the key to its strength, in contrast to pseudo-sciences such as Marxism and Freudian psychology, which while containing elements of truth, set themselves up as infallible truths and glossed over things which contradicted the belief system.

Popper also wrote many other philosophical works, including an important study of the difference between democratic political societies and ones ruled by totalitarian ideaology. However, he rightly deserves fame as one of the most important 20th century philosophers of science.

A philosopher's view of science.......2006-09-22

In this book Popper presents two contradictory theses: (a) science can be based on deductive logic only, and there is no need for induction; (b) science cannot have a logical basis.

Because deduction yields sure knowledge if it is based on sure knowledge and induction always produces only hypothetical knowledge, as Bertrand Russell clearly stated, Popper begins by trying to show that the use of deduction instead of induction can provide a solid logical basis for science. He talks about replacing "inductivism" by "deductivism." In reality, he explains the use of deduction in the testing of a theory: consequences are deduced from the theory and are compared with known facts, which is something known by many. Induction, on the other hand, is used in creating hypotheses in both experimental and theoretical investigations and is again used in generalizing the results of tests (a) to all other possible tests in experimental investigation, and (b) also to some phenomena that cannot be used to test the theory created using the hypothesis, or hypotheses, that are produced inductively. When Popper claims that inductivism can be replaced by deductivism, he is unaware of the fact that induction is used at the beginning of both experimental and theoretical investigations to create hypotheses and again at the end of the investigation to generalize the test results.

But in the rest of the book, Popper concentrates on the generalization of test results, which is done through induction and is what he overlooked to begin with, as explained above. Consequently, Popper proves rightly that scientific knowledge cannot be produced using deductive logic, which is the opposite of what he tried to prove earlier.

The truth is that new knowledge is not a product of logic but is learned from the world about singular phenomena and is generalized through induction. Induction does not yield logically sure knowledge, but evolution created the human brain/mind so that it knows that it has to trust induction. Thus, everyone avoids hitting his or her head against hard objects by learning from past experience through induction. Someone who does not trust such inductive knowledge is punished severely. Similarly, when a scientist or an engineer does not use an accepted theory anywhere in his or her work, he or she is likely to be punished by failure and its consequences of many kinds.

Popper's views should serve to waken up those who seek the comfort of producing all knowledge through deduction only, but in fact, they shed doubt mostly on theories, because a theory is not deduced from anywhere, unlike empirical knowledge is, about some singular phenomena. A theory is constructed and tested by using induction or deduction, as necessary, at various stages of the total process on the basis of empirical knowledge. Popper's views are those of a philosopher who is not familiar with the mission and methods of science and thinks that science is about discovering something that can be called the absolute truth. Read also my evaluation of Kuhn's views.

Another erroneous idea of Popper is that theories can be falsified but cannot be verified. It is true that if a new theory is falsified by a few or even a single test, there is usually no more wish to keep testing it. But when an accepted theory is falsified by one phenomenon, it is not discarded as invalid. Its use continues where it gives good results. It is also true that a theory cannot be verified in an absolute sense, but this is true also about empirical knowledge. The generality of any knowledge is a consequence of induction which is forced upon the mind by the results of evolution, as mentioned. The verification of a theory, or any knowledge, means that it can be used where it gives useful results. Unfortunately, the impossibility of the logical or experimental validation of knowledge in a general way is seen as a weakness of only theories by those who ignore what a theory is and how it is constructed, tested, and used.

Inquiry as Inquiry: A Logic of Scientific Discovery (Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers)

Average customer rating:

Inquiry as Inquiry: A Logic of Scientific Discovery (Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers)
J. Hintikka
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Logic & Language | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Research | Education | Science | Subjects | Books

Methodology & Statistics | Experiments, Instruments & Measurement | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

All Amazon Upgrade | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Science | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Science | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 079235477X

Book Description

Is a genuine logic of scientific discovery possible? In the essays collected here, Hintikka not only defends an affirmative answer; he also outlines such a logic. It is the logic of questions and answers. Thus inquiry in the sense of knowledge-seeking becomes inquiry in the sense of interrogation. Using this new logic, Hintikka establishes a result that will undoubtedly be considered the fundamental theorem of all epistemology, viz., the virtual identity of optimal strategies of pure discovery with optimal deductive strategies. Questions to Nature, of course, must include observations and experiments. Hintikka shows, in fact, how the logic of experimental inquiry can be understood from the interrogative vantage point. Other important topics examined include induction (in a forgotten sense that has nevertheless played a role in science), explanation, the incommensurability of theories, theory-ladenness of observations, and identifiability.

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery

Average customer rating:

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery
Karl Popper
Manufacturer: Routledge
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

Quantum Theory | Physics | Science | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0415091128

Book Description

The basic theme of Popper's philosophy--that something can come from nothing--is related to the present situation in physical theory. Popper carries his investigation right to the center of current debate in quantum physics. He proposes an interpretation of physics--and indeed an entire cosmology--which is realist, conjectural, deductivist and objectivist, anti-positivist, and anti-instrumentalist. He stresses understanding, reminding us that our ignorance grows faster than our conjectural knowledge.

The Open Universe: From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery

Average customer rating:

Laplace's and other demons
"An argument for indeterminism?" Not Quite!
Surprisingly good arguments in defense of Indeterminism

The Open Universe: From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery
Karl Popper
Manufacturer: Routledge
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Consciousness & Thought | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0415078652

Book Description

The Open Universe is the centerpiece of the argument of the Postscript. Popper argues in simple language for the freedom, creativity, and rationality of mankind.

Customer Reviews:

Laplace's and other demons.......2005-07-30

I am a big Popper fan, but this book is out-of-date, although it contains valuable information.

Popper's arguments for indeterminism are based on the body-mind distinction: 'physicalism (or the philosophy of the identity of mind and body) is absurd.'
G. Edelman explains clearly in his brilliant book 'Bright Air, Brilliant Fire' that mind is a matter of matter. Consciousness is an emerging characteristic of life after a long evolution.
Popper's system of 3 Worlds is also flawed (World 1: physical world - brain physiology; World 2: subjective thought - human consciousness; World 3: objective thought - theories), because World 1 and 2 are the same.

His arguments against philosophical and scientific determinism are powerful, but scientifically speaking Laplace's demon is a joke. As Steven Hawking explains in John Boslough's 'Steven Hawking's Universe': 'Even if we do achieve a complete unified theory, we shall not be able to make detailed predictions in any but the simplest situations.'
Predictions will be limited to the extreme and determinism will be non-existant in brain physiology (Mozart's G minor symphony could not have been predicted). Indeterminism will be all the more true in the social sciences (historicism).
Indeterminism is a cardinal characteristic of matter: all singular events in this world are unique, free.

It is very strange that some of the brightest scientific minds (Einstein, Schroedinger) were staunch defenders of determinism (see Popper's discussions with Einstein on p. 90-92).
The fact that Einstein changed his mind at the end of his life is not confirmed in M. Jammer's book 'Einstein and Religion'.

On the other hand, Popper's remark on the arrow of time is to-the-point: 'As to the arrow of time, it is in my opinion a mistake to make the second law of thermodynamics responsible for its direction. Even a non-thermodynamic process, such as the propagation of a wave from a centre, is in fact irreversible.'

Very important is note 3 on p. 43. J. von Neumann, H.H. Goldstine: 'a mathematical formulation necessarily represents only a (more or less explicit) theory of some phase (or aspect) of reality, not reality itself.'

I recommend this book only for Popper fans.

"An argument for indeterminism?" Not Quite!.......2004-12-21

I do not have to tell any of you philosophically inclined amazon shoppers how much a quagmire the determinism/indeterminism problem has been in philosophy. As long as philosophers have been doing philosophy, there has been opinion after opinion on the subject, some decent, most not.

Here comes Karl Popper (in my opinion, one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century) to offer his two cents. While I am a very big Popper fan, I did not come away from this book as satisfied as I could have been. The title promises a 'case for indeterminism' and at best, all we get is a "case why if the world is determined, we couldn't know that anyhow." Let me explain.

Popper sums determinism thus: Determinism is the beleif that future states of the universe are completely inevitable, as every effect proceeds inexorably from causes by static laws of nature. A crucial part of determinism, says Popper, is the belief that had we 'sufficient' knowledge of a past moment and the causal laws of the universe, we could predict with pinpoint accuract any future state of the world, as the future state would come inevitably from those unwavering cause/effect laws of nature.

In this book, Popper attacks the second part of this book - the view that so long as we have 'sufficient' knowledge of the physical coordinates of a point in time, and of the relevant scientific 'laws,' we could predict a future state. He does this in two ways. First, the fact is that this idea is untestable. If we predict a future state and get it wrong, we can ALWAYS say that the information we had was not sufficient enough, and that even though we got the prediction wrong,it is only owing to our imperfect information (rather than, as plausibly, a not-completely-determined universe). Second, Popper suggests (rightly, in my opinion) that COMPLETE accuracy is something of a chimera. To predict a happening with COMPLETE accuracy, one would need to predict it down to the smallest measurement of time - down to the smallest measurement of space. But we have no reason to believe there exist an ABSOLUTELY SMALLEST measure of either of these two things (even though there might be a smallest-we-can-get-thus-far).

These arguments are suprisingly solid (and when I've talked with determinists, they try and skirt these questions like the plague). The problem is that this is in no way a CASE FOR INDETERMINISM, as Popper wants it to be. Even if he has shown that we can not or could not successfully predict the future in any exactitude, this leaves determinism unscathed. The only thing it does is shows that even if determinism were true, we couldn't quite KNOW it (because we lack the type of omnipotence needed to know that we know it).

That, in addition to the fact that pointing out a problem for determinists does not, in any way, make a de jure case for indeterminism (just as criticizing theory A does not automatically mean we should accept B). Popper even admits to this early in his book when he suggests that neither option - determinism or indeterminism - really make all that much sense. Determinism would mean that everything (including us making up our minds on the determinism/indeterminism problem) is completely determined in advance. Indeterminism means that somewhre, there must be causes that are themselves uncaused, or, random). Either way, any answer offered beomes very bizarre very fast, and Popper gives us little reason to think indeterminism any more sensical than determinism (other than intuitional arguments).

So after reading this, I am left as I was: scratching my head and wondering whether the determinism/indeterminism problem will ever be solved. My guess? It won't, as the question seems bigger than what we can get after in our first-person viewpoints (and as William James said, if we are determined, we may just be determined to 'feel' free, which would render a 'real' solution impossible). While Popper has made some decent and original arguments highlighting problems for determinism, anyone picking up this book expecting a 'case for indeterminism' (as the title suggests) will be disappointed. All we get is a 'case why even if determinism is true, we couldn't know it as such.'

Surprisingly good arguments in defense of Indeterminism.......2002-07-03

I started this book expecting to disagree with it. Although I am not a full-fledged determinist, if I was forced to choose between determinism and indeterminism or "free will," I would choose determinism, because the other side of the question is so often used to defend utopian social ideals. If human beings have free will, then (so it is argued), just about any social system, whether laissez-faire or communism, syndicalism or anarcho-capitalism, becomes possible. I regard this way of rationalizing political and social ideology as palpably dishonest. Whether human beings are "determined" or not, they do in fact exhibit certain very definite tendencies of behavior and reaction which make them, within certain parameters, predictable, so that, if you study human nature and society long enough, you will easily understand why all these systems will never happen, and that only hybrid systems are at all possible. The other problem I have with indeterminism is that it goes against the grain of scientific methodology. Scientific knowledge is based on the premise of determinism. In short, science practices a form of methodological determinism.

Popper addressed both my concerns, fully admitting their legitimacy but arguing that they don't necessarily contracdict his indeterminist thesis. The criticism of free will by Hobbes, Spinoza, and Hume, Popper admits, is "sound." But, he insists, that,in and of itself,doesn't establish scientific determinism, and it is scientific determinism that he alone is combatting. As for methodological determinism, Popper again admits its validity, but denies the "metaphysical" conclusions that are so frequently derived from it. Since science is always "incomplete," there is no validity in arguing from a useful method to a dogmatic theory about the universe.

Popper's arguments for indeterminism are very brilliant and convincing--certainly a lot better than that wretched argument cooked up Murray Rothbard and propagated by Ayn Rand's followers. Popper stresses the inability to grasp, in a deterministic sense, human creativity, and then goes on to argue that the problem of self-prediction leads determinism to absurdity.

It is always refreshing to come across a book that is actually rational enough to change one's mind. Most philosophy books generally are of the preaching-to-the-choir variety: if you agree with their conclusions, you will think them brilliant; if you don't, you will regard them as silly and inept. Popper is a cut above these mere rationalizing philosophers. His books are addressed to those who are sincerely interested in learning the truth about the universe. As for those who desire merely to have their own pet ideas reinforced, they should look elsewhere.

Average customer rating:

The other shoe falls - after 50 years

Most impressive defense of Popper's epistemology

Realism and the Aim of Science: From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery
Karl Popper
Manufacturer: Routledge
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
General | Science | Subjects | Books
General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books
All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics: From The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery

Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge Classics)

The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics)

Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach

All Life is Problem Solving

ASIN: 0415084008

Book Description

Popper formulates and explains his non-justificationist theory of knowledge. Science--empirical science--aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can never prove, finally establish, or justify any of its theories as true, not even if it is in fact a true theory. Science must continue to question and criticize all its theories, even those which happen to be true.

Customer Reviews:

The other shoe falls - after 50 years.......2002-03-05

During the 1950s, while "Logik der Forschung" was being translated to become "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" Popper prepared almost a thousand pages of manuscript for publication as a companion volume to be called "The Postscript to The Logic of Scientific Discover: After 20 Years". The 20 years was the time from the original publication of "Logik". It eventually became almost 50 years. For various reasons publication was delayed until William W. Bartley undertook the task of editing the large manuscript. At last The Postscript appeared in three volumes (with further additions) in 1982 and 1983. Volume 1 is "Realism and the Aim of Science", volume 2 is "The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism" and volume 3 is "Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics".

This is probably the least enjoyable of Popper's works, though it offers an important corrective to the widespread idea that Popper's ideas were superseded by Kuhn and Lakatos. In the first part, "The Critical Approach" Popper replies to Kuhn and Lakatos and shows that they never really offered significant criticisms (or alternatives) to the critical approach or to Popper's theory of conjectural objective knowledge. They did identify some problems with "falsification" and these were widely regarded as serious criticisms of Popper's ideas, even though he had recognized the problems some decades before and answered them. For example, Popper had always realised that falsification was only logically decisive (in a way that verification was not) because in real life observations are fallible and they need to be interpreted in the light of theories.

In the second part of the book Popper outlines his thoughts on the propensity interpretation of probability. This is his effort to overcome the defects of subjective theories of probability and the challenge of providing a theory of the probability of single events. This is an important but technical area of his work which some people find engrossing and others approach with a kind of mental block. I suggest that you ask David Miller to comment on Part II.

Most impressive defense of Popper's epistemology.......2000-04-12

Popper has presented his controversial views of induction and the nature of scientific discovery in a number of essays and books, but no where does he advance some of his seemingly paradoxical views better than in "Realism and the Aim of Science." At first blush, Popper's views of the nature of scientific inquiry seem to defy common sense. He believes, for instance, that the distinguishing mark of scientific theories are their falsibiability, rather than verifiability; that audacity, rather than caution, is the essence of science; that irrefutability is not a virtue in a theory but a vice; and that no scientific theory ever becomes more probable when evidence is discovered in its favor but must always remain infinitely improbable. What makes this book so remarkable is the brilliant arguments Popper advances for these seemingly absurd views. Popper demonstrates why these views are necessary in order to have a rational view of science, arguing that the opposite view of knowledge, the view that regards verifiability as central to scientific inquiry, tends to blind those seeking the truth from facts which would refute their theories. Hence Popper's belief that, instead of trying to prove our theories, we should try to falsify them instead. That way, if there are facts out there which would disprove them, we are much more likely to find them.

Average customer rating:

The Logic of Scientific Discovery

Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000ESVDEU

Discovery Science: First International Conference, DS'98, Fukuoka, Japan, December 14-16, 1998, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science / Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence)

Average customer rating:

Discovery Science: First International Conference, DS'98, Fukuoka, Japan, December 14-16, 1998, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science / Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence)

Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Computers & Internet | Subjects | Books

General | Databases | Computers & Internet | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Medicine | Subjects | Books

All Amazon Upgrade | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Computers & Internet | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Medicine | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

Science | Amazon Upgrade | Stores | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Computers & Internet | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Medicine | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Science | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
ASIN: 3540653902

Book Description

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the First International Conference on Discovery Science, DS'98, held in Fukuoka, Japan, in December 1998.The volume presents 28 revised full papers selected from a total of 76 submissions. Also included are five invited contributions and 34 selected poster presentations. The ultimate goal of DS'98 and this volume is to establish discovery science as a new field of research and development. The papers presented relate discovery science to areas as formal logic, knowledge processing, machine learning, automated deduction, searching, neural networks, database management, information retrieval, intelligent network agents, visualization, knowledge discovery, data mining, information extraction, etc.

La Logica De La Investigacion Cientifica/The Logic of the Scientific Discovery (Estructura Y Funcion/Structure and Function)

Average customer rating:

La Logica De La Investigacion Cientifica/The Logic of the Scientific Discovery (Estructura Y Funcion/Structure and Function)
Karl Raimund Popper
Manufacturer: Tecnos
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Methodology | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Spanish | Foreign Language Nonfiction | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Research | Education | Science | Subjects | Books

Methodology & Statistics | Experiments, Instruments & Measurement | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Ciencia | Libros en español | Formats | Books

The Logic of Discovery: A Theory of the Rationality of Scientific Research (Synthese Library)

Average customer rating:

The Logic of Discovery: A Theory of the Rationality of Scientific Research (Synthese Library)
S. Kleiner
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Logic & Language | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Research | Education | Science | Subjects | Books

Methodology & Statistics | Experiments, Instruments & Measurement | Science | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

General | History & Philosophy | Science | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 0792323718

Book Description

Scientific research is viewed as a deliberate activity and the logic of discovery consists of strategies and arguments whereby the best objectives (questions) and optimal means for achieving these objectives (heuristics) are chosen. This book includes a discussion and some proposals regarding the way the logic of questions can be applied to understanding scientific research and draws upon work in artificial intelligence in a discussion of heuristics and methods for appraising heuristics (metaheuristics). It also includes a discussion of a third source for scientific objectives and heuristics; episodes and examplars from the history of science and the history of philosophy.
This book is written to be accessible to advanced students in philosophy and to the scientific community. It is of interest to philosophers of science, philosophers of biology, historians of physics, and historians of biology.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books