What do you think?
Rate this book
Popper
Cover worn, owner's inscription, page edges tanned. Shipped from the U.K. All orders received before 3pm sent that weekday.
109 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
16 people are currently reading
876 people want to read
About the author
Bryan Magee
54 books233 followersBryan Edgar Magee was a noted British broadcasting personality, politician, poet, and author, best known as a popularizer of philosophy.
He attended Keble College, Oxford where he studied History as an undergraduate and then Philosophy, Politics and Economics in one year. He also spent a year studying philosophy at Yale University on a post-graduate fellowship.
Magee's most important influence on society remains his efforts to make philosophy accessible to the layman. Transcripts of his television series "Men of Ideas" are available in published form in the book Talking Philosophy. This book provides a readable and wide-ranging introduction to modern Anglo-American philosophy.
He attended Keble College, Oxford where he studied History as an undergraduate and then Philosophy, Politics and Economics in one year. He also spent a year studying philosophy at Yale University on a post-graduate fellowship.
Magee's most important influence on society remains his efforts to make philosophy accessible to the layman. Transcripts of his television series "Men of Ideas" are available in published form in the book Talking Philosophy. This book provides a readable and wide-ranging introduction to modern Anglo-American philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
March 30, 2021
Never has someone moved up so quickly in my hierarchy of favorite philosophers. The overviews of Popper's views and scholarship, as laid out in this book, are extremely clear and corrective to the many misapprehensions that people have regarding his work. I certainly recognized some of my own biases based on superficial understandings of his work, and couldn't be more motivated to take a deeper dive into his many insights, of both an epistemic and political nature, which have been all too ignored over the past century.
Highly recommend this easy read to anyone interested in this sort of stuff.
Highly recommend this easy read to anyone interested in this sort of stuff.
February 17, 2015
I really enjoyed this slim volume explaining Popper's views on science, logic, and government.
Money quote: "What this comes down to is the assertion that before you change anything, you must change everything, which is self-contradictory. Second, whatever actions we take will have some unintended consequences which may easily be at odds with our blueprint. And the more wholesale the action the more plentiful the unintended consequences. To claim rationality for sweeping plans to change society as a whole is to claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge which we simply do not possess."
Money quote: "What this comes down to is the assertion that before you change anything, you must change everything, which is self-contradictory. Second, whatever actions we take will have some unintended consequences which may easily be at odds with our blueprint. And the more wholesale the action the more plentiful the unintended consequences. To claim rationality for sweeping plans to change society as a whole is to claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge which we simply do not possess."
December 19, 2019
This small book is a great resource for understanding Karl Popper's wide-ranging and worldview which is all the more important given that a lot of serious people misunderstand (even the fundamentals) of Popper.
Magee shows a deep understanding and appreciate for Popper, adequately explaining Popper's thinking on epistemology, science, democracy and the open-society, and how they are all intimately connected.
Maggee clears up that Popper is not a logical positivist or verificationalist (or a cousin such as a falsificationist). Popper was very critical of logical positivism and his theory of demarcation between science and non-science was not one between meaning and nonsense. To the contrary, Popper viewed many philosophical theories (including his own) as very meaningful.
Magee shows a deep understanding and appreciate for Popper, adequately explaining Popper's thinking on epistemology, science, democracy and the open-society, and how they are all intimately connected.
Maggee clears up that Popper is not a logical positivist or verificationalist (or a cousin such as a falsificationist). Popper was very critical of logical positivism and his theory of demarcation between science and non-science was not one between meaning and nonsense. To the contrary, Popper viewed many philosophical theories (including his own) as very meaningful.
Read
May 29, 2021Interessante korte introductie op Popper, een van de centrale wetenschapsfilosofen uit de 20ste eeuw. Popper heeft een sceptisch instrumentarium voorgesteld met zijn falsificatiecriterium en eisen voor het demarcatieprobleem. Wanneer mag men spreken over objectiviteit of goede wetenschap? Hoewel hii volgens Magee geen sluitend antwoord biedt is Popper volgens mij interessant om naast Thomas Kuhn te houden, om de specifieke dynamiek van wetenschapsbeoefening te begrijpen.
January 19, 2025
A lucid introduction to Popper which brings out the revolutionary tenor of his thought. I found his philosophy of science, especially the notion of the logic of scientific discovery, interesting and his epistemology, especially the notion of a third objective world of social phenomena especially profound. His defense of liberal democracy as leads from his epistemology is a fascinating attempt to ground preference for it as opposed to other governments. I attempt a brief summary.
Karl Popper was not part of the Logical positivist circle but rather considered by them to be the main opposition. Magee makes the argument that Popper's social and political theory are closely related to his philosophy of science and his epistemology.
Popper's main contribution to the philosophy of science has been to offer a solution to the problem of induction. The traditional view of the scientific method utilised the inductive method. Popper's solution was to emphasise the process of conjecture formation through a process of irrational imaginative leaps which then deductively led to propositions that were refutable. The traditional view may be termed verificationism, Popper's view falsificationism. Inherent in this view is the point that what we call knowledge is provisional and permanently so. Truth, on this account, is a regulative idea. Note that Popper's theory of conjectures and refutations is not a psychological account but a logical account of method. Scientists need irrational, imaginative leaps to come up with new theories. Note too that the observations and experiments, far from giving rise to thte theory, are partially derived from it and designed to test it. Theories must take risks in order to be falsifiable. Observations are always interpretations and thus inevitably theory-laden. Theories derive from previous theories and these previous theories ultimately derive from inborn expectations.
According to the traditional view, induction divides science from non-science. But this is not plausible. Popper proposed the criterion of falsifiability as the distinction between science and non-science. Note that this is not a distinction between sense and nonsense, as per the logical positivists. A theory must first of all provide a solution to a problem. But it must also be compatible with all known observations and contain its predecessor theories as first approximations and account for their failure. Magee notes that Popper and Kuhn's account of science is reconcilable, Popper focuses on the logic of scientific discovery whereas Kuhn focuses sociologically on normal science. Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis are not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. This does not mean that they are valueless. Popper attacked logical positivism on this point noting that universal statements such as scientific statements were certainly eliminated by the positivist verificationist principle -- as they were not subject to empirical verification. Secondly, it is out of metaphysics that science has emerged. Third, if tautologous assertions alone are meaningful then the debate about the concept of meaning must itself contain meaningless statements. Popper also attacked both theories of Wittgenstein -- seeing philosophy not just as an arid analysis of concepts, but of studying the world.
The traditional view of the scientific method went like this: (1) observation and experiment (2) inductive generalisation (3) hypothesis (4) attempted verification of hypothesis (5) proof or disproof (6) knowledge. Popper's replacement was: (1) problem (2) proposed solution (3) deduction of testable propositions from new theory (4) tests i.e. attempted refutations by observation and experiment (5) preference established between competing theories. He is an evolutionist and believes that knowledge emerges as organisms engage in problem-solving for the purpose of survival. He also conceptualised the existence of three worlds: the objective world of things, the subjective world of thoughts, and the intersubjective world of social phenomena. This third world exists importantly and is the locus of knowledge. He challenges traditional epistemology for focusing too much on the second world at the expense of the third objective world.
Popper characterises the underlying pattern of development of knowledge as:
Initial Problem (P1) --> Trial solution (TS) --> Error Elimination (EE) --> Resulting Situation (P2).
This is not cyclical and does lead to genuine progress. Nor is it dialectical. Magee also makes the interesting observation that E.H. Gombrich was very influenced by Popper -- will have to read him to see in what manner. Another consequence is that changes in theories have to be gradual, not gestalt shifts.
As to politics, Popper believes that an Open Society will be the best to solve problems, a direct consequence of his epistemology. A policy is a hypothesis which is to be tested against reality and needs constant correction. A democracy is the best kind of society for doing that. A democracy needs to be defended against fascist and authoritarian elements, with force if necessary. A democracy is not equivalent to majoritarianism because a majority may prefer an authoritarian government. He sees democracy as the preservation of free institutions. He outlines some paradoxes -- the paradox of democracy (which we just discussed), the paradox of tolerance (that a very tolerant society will collapse due to intolerance), the paradox of freedom (unqualified freedom produces its opposite), the paradox of sovereignty (if power is put into the hands of one kind of authority, they might delegate it to others based on good intentions which would lead to undesirable consequences). Popper is in favour of state interventionism in the economy due to these factors. This seems to Magee to be a philosophy of social democracy, anti-conservative as conservatism is generally opposed to change and anti-authoritarian at the same level. The general directive for public policy is: Minimise avoidable suffering. Characteristically, this draws attentions to problems -- which are conducive to a gradual resolution. The second formulation is: maximise the freedom of individuals to live as they wish. This gives provision for positive measures like funding for education, the arts, health etc.
Near the centre of Popper's explanation for the appeal of totalitarianism is a socio-psychological concept which he calls the 'strain of civilisation' -- i.e. our innate discomfort with freedom and desire to cede responsibility to others. Popper critiques Plato and Marx as proponents of a closed society. Marxism has been repeatedly falsified and is therefore no longer a tenable theory. Popper is quite opposed to historical determinism and is an indeterminist -- we cannot predict the future in any significant sense. He critiques Utopian approaches to politics and advocates for gradual change. This is firstly because we must always start from a context, and secondly, our actions will always have unintended consequences that may be at odds with our blueprint. Also, acting according to a blueprint will always face opposition and this opposition will have to be radically dealt with and suppressed; which is immoral. The logic of the revolutionary government will lead to collapse in the end. Our task should instead be to maximise our control over the actual changes that occur in a process of change which is never-ending and to use that control wisely. We need 'an unending feedback process in which the bold propounding of new ideas is invariably attended by their subjection to rigorous elimination in the light of experience'. In philosophy he calls this critical rationalism, in politics, he calls this piecemeal social engineering.
Karl Popper was not part of the Logical positivist circle but rather considered by them to be the main opposition. Magee makes the argument that Popper's social and political theory are closely related to his philosophy of science and his epistemology.
Popper's main contribution to the philosophy of science has been to offer a solution to the problem of induction. The traditional view of the scientific method utilised the inductive method. Popper's solution was to emphasise the process of conjecture formation through a process of irrational imaginative leaps which then deductively led to propositions that were refutable. The traditional view may be termed verificationism, Popper's view falsificationism. Inherent in this view is the point that what we call knowledge is provisional and permanently so. Truth, on this account, is a regulative idea. Note that Popper's theory of conjectures and refutations is not a psychological account but a logical account of method. Scientists need irrational, imaginative leaps to come up with new theories. Note too that the observations and experiments, far from giving rise to thte theory, are partially derived from it and designed to test it. Theories must take risks in order to be falsifiable. Observations are always interpretations and thus inevitably theory-laden. Theories derive from previous theories and these previous theories ultimately derive from inborn expectations.
According to the traditional view, induction divides science from non-science. But this is not plausible. Popper proposed the criterion of falsifiability as the distinction between science and non-science. Note that this is not a distinction between sense and nonsense, as per the logical positivists. A theory must first of all provide a solution to a problem. But it must also be compatible with all known observations and contain its predecessor theories as first approximations and account for their failure. Magee notes that Popper and Kuhn's account of science is reconcilable, Popper focuses on the logic of scientific discovery whereas Kuhn focuses sociologically on normal science. Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis are not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. This does not mean that they are valueless. Popper attacked logical positivism on this point noting that universal statements such as scientific statements were certainly eliminated by the positivist verificationist principle -- as they were not subject to empirical verification. Secondly, it is out of metaphysics that science has emerged. Third, if tautologous assertions alone are meaningful then the debate about the concept of meaning must itself contain meaningless statements. Popper also attacked both theories of Wittgenstein -- seeing philosophy not just as an arid analysis of concepts, but of studying the world.
The traditional view of the scientific method went like this: (1) observation and experiment (2) inductive generalisation (3) hypothesis (4) attempted verification of hypothesis (5) proof or disproof (6) knowledge. Popper's replacement was: (1) problem (2) proposed solution (3) deduction of testable propositions from new theory (4) tests i.e. attempted refutations by observation and experiment (5) preference established between competing theories. He is an evolutionist and believes that knowledge emerges as organisms engage in problem-solving for the purpose of survival. He also conceptualised the existence of three worlds: the objective world of things, the subjective world of thoughts, and the intersubjective world of social phenomena. This third world exists importantly and is the locus of knowledge. He challenges traditional epistemology for focusing too much on the second world at the expense of the third objective world.
Popper characterises the underlying pattern of development of knowledge as:
Initial Problem (P1) --> Trial solution (TS) --> Error Elimination (EE) --> Resulting Situation (P2).
This is not cyclical and does lead to genuine progress. Nor is it dialectical. Magee also makes the interesting observation that E.H. Gombrich was very influenced by Popper -- will have to read him to see in what manner. Another consequence is that changes in theories have to be gradual, not gestalt shifts.
As to politics, Popper believes that an Open Society will be the best to solve problems, a direct consequence of his epistemology. A policy is a hypothesis which is to be tested against reality and needs constant correction. A democracy is the best kind of society for doing that. A democracy needs to be defended against fascist and authoritarian elements, with force if necessary. A democracy is not equivalent to majoritarianism because a majority may prefer an authoritarian government. He sees democracy as the preservation of free institutions. He outlines some paradoxes -- the paradox of democracy (which we just discussed), the paradox of tolerance (that a very tolerant society will collapse due to intolerance), the paradox of freedom (unqualified freedom produces its opposite), the paradox of sovereignty (if power is put into the hands of one kind of authority, they might delegate it to others based on good intentions which would lead to undesirable consequences). Popper is in favour of state interventionism in the economy due to these factors. This seems to Magee to be a philosophy of social democracy, anti-conservative as conservatism is generally opposed to change and anti-authoritarian at the same level. The general directive for public policy is: Minimise avoidable suffering. Characteristically, this draws attentions to problems -- which are conducive to a gradual resolution. The second formulation is: maximise the freedom of individuals to live as they wish. This gives provision for positive measures like funding for education, the arts, health etc.
Near the centre of Popper's explanation for the appeal of totalitarianism is a socio-psychological concept which he calls the 'strain of civilisation' -- i.e. our innate discomfort with freedom and desire to cede responsibility to others. Popper critiques Plato and Marx as proponents of a closed society. Marxism has been repeatedly falsified and is therefore no longer a tenable theory. Popper is quite opposed to historical determinism and is an indeterminist -- we cannot predict the future in any significant sense. He critiques Utopian approaches to politics and advocates for gradual change. This is firstly because we must always start from a context, and secondly, our actions will always have unintended consequences that may be at odds with our blueprint. Also, acting according to a blueprint will always face opposition and this opposition will have to be radically dealt with and suppressed; which is immoral. The logic of the revolutionary government will lead to collapse in the end. Our task should instead be to maximise our control over the actual changes that occur in a process of change which is never-ending and to use that control wisely. We need 'an unending feedback process in which the bold propounding of new ideas is invariably attended by their subjection to rigorous elimination in the light of experience'. In philosophy he calls this critical rationalism, in politics, he calls this piecemeal social engineering.
Read
June 6, 2024Really an excellent introduction to Popper. If all the Fontana series were like this, it could have been the best introductory series on philosophy ever produced (sadly it is far too spotty to ever achieve that title, just look at MacIntyre's text on Marcuse, which is hardly an introduction).
I had to consciously separate my views personally of Popper from the quality of the text. I think a lot of incorrect statements are made, especially with regard to Marx (the stereotype that Marx was a scientistic determinist irritated me to no end, especially when it is commented that, if one reads Popper, no rational individual could remain a Marxist, since it is plainly incorrect). But despite this, Magee writes pleasantly, and with obvious admiration for the subject matter. The product is a very clear, concise, and readable introduction to Popper's key ideas, and without much of the muddied confusions that even first year philosophy of science courses often bring with them.
If you're going to read Popper and looking for an introduction, this may as well be it.
I had to consciously separate my views personally of Popper from the quality of the text. I think a lot of incorrect statements are made, especially with regard to Marx (the stereotype that Marx was a scientistic determinist irritated me to no end, especially when it is commented that, if one reads Popper, no rational individual could remain a Marxist, since it is plainly incorrect). But despite this, Magee writes pleasantly, and with obvious admiration for the subject matter. The product is a very clear, concise, and readable introduction to Popper's key ideas, and without much of the muddied confusions that even first year philosophy of science courses often bring with them.
If you're going to read Popper and looking for an introduction, this may as well be it.
April 1, 2012
Blew my mind and gave focus to a lot of issues that bugged me about how work is done and the inefficiency inherent in the "way they always have done it" mindset. How do you deal with institutional knowledge when the key person who has been there for a long time leaves and takes that history and knowledge with them, leaving behind people who have huge gaps in the proven methods of doing their work? Knowledge Management. It makes so much sense to Virgos!
April 6, 2024
Wow, I loved this little book and anticipate reading it again, in addition to attempting something from Popper himself. The author describes Popper's philosophy as a "philosophy of action" and contrasts it with other philosophical theories as deeply practical, truly a compass to live by versus an intellectual exercise that ends in a twisted puzzle of unanswerable questions. The book covers, in a concise 100 pages or so, his main fields of thought: science/truth, the evolution of knowledge, and politics. I enjoyed the former two the most but given the current state of politics in the US, I am interested to dive deeper into the latter.
Popper dismantles a question that has, according to the author, vexed philosophy for centuries - how science, and knowledge itself, is built on a faulty foundation. Criticisms of science, Popper later refutes, say it is built on inductive reasoning. You observe facts and when you see something enough times, you develop a theory. To use the analogy borrowed by Taleb's book "Black Swan", which drove me to find Popper, if you have a theory that there are only white swans and find only white swans for hundreds of years, then you convert it to a natural law due to massive accumulation of evidence. But it only takes one black swan to destroy this natural law. If science is built solely on past observations to predict the future, then you actually can't know anything because one new fact can overturn all knowledge. Popper turns this problem on its head by saying that science, and the search for truth, is actually the attempt to disprove what we know, the constant searching for evidence that is contrary to what we think we know. And that truth is actually unattainable, but we can only get closer and closer over time, less and less wrong. I love the idea of celebrating wrongness as a way to guide your thinking and his embrace of uncertainty as a fundamental aspect of being human, unsettling though it is.
The second area, the evolution of knowledge, was even more fun to read. He seems to say that evolution itself is simply life's efforts to solve problems and that, by extension, life is driven by problem solving. Life transforming from bacteria to more complex forms of life was driven by life adapting to problems, "solving" issues with how to grow and get energy. Over millions of years, animals begin making sounds to communicate, growls and snorts, another problem solving strategy. Eventually, in what he terms World 3 (World 1 is the physical world, World 2 is inside our minds, i.e., thoughts), humans invent language (among other things in World 3), a system that objectively exists but is outside of ourselves and over time evolves in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, creating new problems to solve that we couldn't have anticipated. Math is in World 3, we invented the numbers 1, 2, and 3 to solve some problem, probably to keep track of goblets of beer to feed the workers or something like that, but the invention created new problems like the existence of odd and even numbers, prime numbers and exploding out from there the most complex concepts that even modern computers struggle to solve. And I think, knowledge is created, reason is created, and the search for truth is created with World 3. Art, politics, science, all that makes us human was launched with the creation of World 3. There is plenty more to say on this and frankly, I struggle to capture the implications, but it was fascinating.
The last section is on politics, evidently Popper wrote a devastating argument against Marx, and less successfully Plato, which seems to be founded on the impossibility of predicting the future or designing policy interventions that have the exact intended effects as predicted. This reality creates a terrible cycle for people driven to build a Utopia (Marxists) or those driven to go backwards to some nostalgic past and thus arrest further change, in which the adherents of those faulty ideas are forced to use violence to reach their aims but the goal is unattainable, and thus the spiral to chaos. Popper wants a society built on his view of truth, always being sought but never reached, and an admission that we will often be wrong, have unintended consequences, but where new approaches are welcome because we all know that only through experimentation and trying new things can we ever make life better for humans...or something like that, not sure I am nailing it perfectly here.
Popper dismantles a question that has, according to the author, vexed philosophy for centuries - how science, and knowledge itself, is built on a faulty foundation. Criticisms of science, Popper later refutes, say it is built on inductive reasoning. You observe facts and when you see something enough times, you develop a theory. To use the analogy borrowed by Taleb's book "Black Swan", which drove me to find Popper, if you have a theory that there are only white swans and find only white swans for hundreds of years, then you convert it to a natural law due to massive accumulation of evidence. But it only takes one black swan to destroy this natural law. If science is built solely on past observations to predict the future, then you actually can't know anything because one new fact can overturn all knowledge. Popper turns this problem on its head by saying that science, and the search for truth, is actually the attempt to disprove what we know, the constant searching for evidence that is contrary to what we think we know. And that truth is actually unattainable, but we can only get closer and closer over time, less and less wrong. I love the idea of celebrating wrongness as a way to guide your thinking and his embrace of uncertainty as a fundamental aspect of being human, unsettling though it is.
The second area, the evolution of knowledge, was even more fun to read. He seems to say that evolution itself is simply life's efforts to solve problems and that, by extension, life is driven by problem solving. Life transforming from bacteria to more complex forms of life was driven by life adapting to problems, "solving" issues with how to grow and get energy. Over millions of years, animals begin making sounds to communicate, growls and snorts, another problem solving strategy. Eventually, in what he terms World 3 (World 1 is the physical world, World 2 is inside our minds, i.e., thoughts), humans invent language (among other things in World 3), a system that objectively exists but is outside of ourselves and over time evolves in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways, creating new problems to solve that we couldn't have anticipated. Math is in World 3, we invented the numbers 1, 2, and 3 to solve some problem, probably to keep track of goblets of beer to feed the workers or something like that, but the invention created new problems like the existence of odd and even numbers, prime numbers and exploding out from there the most complex concepts that even modern computers struggle to solve. And I think, knowledge is created, reason is created, and the search for truth is created with World 3. Art, politics, science, all that makes us human was launched with the creation of World 3. There is plenty more to say on this and frankly, I struggle to capture the implications, but it was fascinating.
The last section is on politics, evidently Popper wrote a devastating argument against Marx, and less successfully Plato, which seems to be founded on the impossibility of predicting the future or designing policy interventions that have the exact intended effects as predicted. This reality creates a terrible cycle for people driven to build a Utopia (Marxists) or those driven to go backwards to some nostalgic past and thus arrest further change, in which the adherents of those faulty ideas are forced to use violence to reach their aims but the goal is unattainable, and thus the spiral to chaos. Popper wants a society built on his view of truth, always being sought but never reached, and an admission that we will often be wrong, have unintended consequences, but where new approaches are welcome because we all know that only through experimentation and trying new things can we ever make life better for humans...or something like that, not sure I am nailing it perfectly here.
February 23, 2020
This book was recommended by David Deutsch in the bibliography of "The Beginning of Infinity". A slim work, (107 pages), it is very information dense. If you read both books, you will understand how Deutsch drew heavily on Popper's work. Popper was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century when it comes to the clarity and quality of his work, although others such as Wittegenstein drew larger cult followings. The first part of the book discusses Popper's brillant solution to the poblem of induction. In Popper's entire epistemology and philosophy of science, induction is not required. In fact, the source of theories is immaterial - all that matters is if the theories are falsafiable. Theories are created as the result of creative acts to solve problems, not on the basis of induction from observation. All observations, in fact, are theory-ladden. Theories come prior to observation, not the other way around.
The book gets very interesting towards the end, in the discussion of Popper's devastating critique of Marxism and more generally all form of historicism and Utopianism. One also gets a glimpse his passionate, compelling argument for an "open society" and democratic institutions. As acknowledged by the author, the book doesn't get into his Ethics very much, only glimpses are given.
Altogether this is a worthwhile read, sort of like a "Cliff Notes" versison for thoes who don't have the time or patience to wade through Popper's vast actual writings. Some quotes from Popper are included throughout.
The book gets very interesting towards the end, in the discussion of Popper's devastating critique of Marxism and more generally all form of historicism and Utopianism. One also gets a glimpse his passionate, compelling argument for an "open society" and democratic institutions. As acknowledged by the author, the book doesn't get into his Ethics very much, only glimpses are given.
Altogether this is a worthwhile read, sort of like a "Cliff Notes" versison for thoes who don't have the time or patience to wade through Popper's vast actual writings. Some quotes from Popper are included throughout.
November 14, 2020
Examples of topics in this book:
- How science and knowledge in general progress. (Conjecture and criticism)
- Why the famous philosophical "problem of induction" is solved. (We never need justified foundation)
- Why Freud's psychoanalysis is not scientific. (Unfalsifiability)
- "Who should rule?" is a morally wrong question in politics. (Instead, the main question is how to let people remove bad policies/rulers without violence.)
- Why Marxism is wrong? (Future of soceities cannot be determined because future knowledge is inherently unknowable)
All above are discussed in a unified way of thinking.
This book is a very nice introduction to Karl Popper (and David Deutsch).
- How science and knowledge in general progress. (Conjecture and criticism)
- Why the famous philosophical "problem of induction" is solved. (We never need justified foundation)
- Why Freud's psychoanalysis is not scientific. (Unfalsifiability)
- "Who should rule?" is a morally wrong question in politics. (Instead, the main question is how to let people remove bad policies/rulers without violence.)
- Why Marxism is wrong? (Future of soceities cannot be determined because future knowledge is inherently unknowable)
All above are discussed in a unified way of thinking.
This book is a very nice introduction to Karl Popper (and David Deutsch).
June 25, 2017
The father of falsification, Karl Popper, recommends that we formulate theories in clear and transparent ways to expose them unambiguously to refutation. This method of criticism is a constant feedback loop so we never really *know* anything. We're always in the loop: problem--trial solution--measure/expose errors/learn--reformulate problem/discover new ones. Popper is essentially the founding father of lean startup. If a statement or idea can't be tested and disproven with empirical evidence then it isn't science. ****
October 24, 2021
Accessible distillation of Popper's main views. The first 3 chapters discuss his epistemological foundation and provide the reader with a very broad overview of Popper's scientific philosophy. The last few chapters on the open societies are an extension of approach to science on a larger, more anthropocentric examination as well as a critique of dialectical materialism. Good intro to understanding Popper.
November 14, 2024
I read the entire thing as though Magee were dictating to me (I know his distinct voice from the excellent Modern Philosophers series) which made the experience very enjoyable. This is a great primer to Popper’s thought, with more ink spilled over his political philosophy and less over his philosophy of science. Five stars.
May 22, 2024
Easily deserves five stars. An exceptionally well-written and clear book. Manages to expound the main points of Popper's philosophy in just over 100 pages, while providing pointers to readers who want the full account of the aspects that are covered. Highly recommended as an introduction to Popper.
April 2, 2018
Engaging and readable summary of Popper's works.
September 16, 2019
Brilliant distillation of Popper's key ideas. Anyone interested in Sir Karl would do well to start here.
February 8, 2020
Excellent introduction to Popper’s philosophy.
September 7, 2021
The basic introduction to Popper's central ideas.
June 15, 2022
A cogent and compact summary of Popper’s views and contributions, from falsification to his argument against Marxism and Utopianism
March 10, 2023
Easy to read. I found myself agreeing with Popper a lot more than I expected.
May 7, 2023
Magee is a great communicator and packs more than is possible (in both senses) in this tiny little book. He makes a good case, and I'm definitely tuning to popper's own books next.
September 19, 2023
This book is a brilliant introduction to Popper's approach to his "critical rationalism" in philosophy and "fragmented societal engineering" in politics.
August 30, 2024
A very clear and engaging introduction to Popper's excellent philosophy and the "Third World".
December 31, 2024
“Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite"
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance"
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance"
January 9, 2019
The author has an unfortunate communist interpretation of Popper's ideas towards the final chapters, but otherwise a very interesting read! Not much given on Popper's thoughts on science so I hope to read more about that elsewhere.
Want to read
July 15, 2021In het Nederlands: Popper, Aula 533, 1974.
July 13, 2016
Magee's writings are always very clear and descriptive. That doesn't mean they are easy. To me, a physicist, they are not. I always have to go back and read them a second and third (and sometimes even a 4th time). But he sums up very well what other philosophers (in this case Popper) are saying, in ways that those philosophers themselves cannot do.
Best quote: "All that matters is that one should have an interesting problem and be genuinely trying to solve it."
Best quote: "All that matters is that one should have an interesting problem and be genuinely trying to solve it."
January 1, 2016
Slightly biased going into this as a firm adherent to the parallels of Science and the Arts (I think they are the same thing).
An excellent introduction to Popper's philosophy. Extremely well written, intriguing and engaging text, Magee has adroitly distilled substantial ideas in a way that makes you want more!
I am very excited to start my journey into Popper's works after reading this.
A must for all Artists, Scientists and Sociologists
An excellent introduction to Popper's philosophy. Extremely well written, intriguing and engaging text, Magee has adroitly distilled substantial ideas in a way that makes you want more!
I am very excited to start my journey into Popper's works after reading this.
A must for all Artists, Scientists and Sociologists
August 7, 2012
Product Description
Karl Popper has been hailed as the greatest philosopher of all time and as a thinker whose influence is ackowledged by a variety of scholars. This work demonstrates Popper's importance across the whole range of philosophy and provides an introduction to the main themes of philosophy itself.
March 19, 2007
very readable for Popper enthusiats
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews