What do you think?
Rate this book
Popper : escritos selectos (Filosofia)
En el presente volumen David Miller, en un tiempo ayudante de investigación de Popper y ahora uno de sus principales expositores y críticos, reunió diversos textos sobre teoría del conocimiento, filosofía de la ciencia, metafísica y filosofía social, que representan una clara muestra de la lucidez y el espíritu crítico de Karl Popper, considerado por algunos el filósofo de fin de siglo.
430 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
47 people are currently reading
844 people want to read
About the author
David Miller
9 books5 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mi...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
February 15, 2015
“O relativismo cultural e a doutrina do contexto fechado constituem sérios obstáculos à disposição de aprender com os outros.”
(Karl Popper)
November 18, 2018
A very good selection of Karl Popper's voluminous writings by his research assistant David Miller who also provides a good introduction to Popperian philosophy.
The first two sections on the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of science are the best. There were half a dozen chapters taken from Conjectures and Refutations, and I'd probably recommend that volume as a better starting point to Popper. In fact, newbies to Popperian philosophy should start with David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity as he's made improvements and is a better writer.
If you're mainly interested in Popper's social philosophy (which is inextricably linked with his theory of knowledge), section four pulls some of the best chapters from The Open Society and its Enemies supplemented with some chapters from The Poverty of Historicism so is more palatable than picking up those tomes.
The first two sections on the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of science are the best. There were half a dozen chapters taken from Conjectures and Refutations, and I'd probably recommend that volume as a better starting point to Popper. In fact, newbies to Popperian philosophy should start with David Deutsch's Beginning of Infinity as he's made improvements and is a better writer.
If you're mainly interested in Popper's social philosophy (which is inextricably linked with his theory of knowledge), section four pulls some of the best chapters from The Open Society and its Enemies supplemented with some chapters from The Poverty of Historicism so is more palatable than picking up those tomes.
December 7, 2009
This book was actually very interesting. Again, I wish I were discussing it in detail a philosophy class versus just touching on it in our financial accounting seminar, but overall I am glad that I read it.
August 22, 2022
An expansive and deeper dive into Karl Popper. He is a refreshingly good writer and I am tempted by his ideas… his Darwinian epistemology in particular. Easily my second favorite Karl (behind Carl Von of course… the more well known Karl can suck it🤘).
January 11, 2016
This is not an easy book to rate. It's a book excerpted from various papers of Poppers. The papers are organized into 4 sections: Theory of knowledge; Philosophy of science; Metaphysics; and Social philosophy.
What I liked about it: good philosophers can articulate about subtle points. Popper's discussion about the theory of knowledge and philosophy of science is great and sometimes exquisite. The first time you hear some of the perspectives you'd feel liberating.
What I don't like about it: This is not a book Popper wrote as a single treaties, thus it has the togetherness of any cut-n-pasted content. Some feel like yanked from a bigger piece and feels a bit hard to follow. The second issue is that of Metaphysics: it's just like the stereotypical philosophy: verbiage. I just don't resonate at all. YMMV.
What I liked about it: good philosophers can articulate about subtle points. Popper's discussion about the theory of knowledge and philosophy of science is great and sometimes exquisite. The first time you hear some of the perspectives you'd feel liberating.
What I don't like about it: This is not a book Popper wrote as a single treaties, thus it has the togetherness of any cut-n-pasted content. Some feel like yanked from a bigger piece and feels a bit hard to follow. The second issue is that of Metaphysics: it's just like the stereotypical philosophy: verbiage. I just don't resonate at all. YMMV.
October 9, 2015
Karl Popper was one of the 20th Century's most important philosophers -- whether distinguishing between what is science from what is pseudo-science, elaborating on the scientific method, writing on the characteristics of a free society or in his critiques of Marxism and other utopian philosophies -- and he is still relevant today. This collection gives a wide overview of the subjects he wrote upon in easily digested chunks. Just don't be put off by the introduction -- Popper is much more readable than Miller.
July 28, 2018
This was a good follow-on to Unended Quest. I essentially buy all of his arguments so my next step is to read up on criticisms of Popper's ideas to see where he went wrong and how much I missed. My first foray into philosophy and I'm very unsure who to trust.
Read
January 15, 2022In recognizing that it was the falsifiability of scientific hypotheses that mattered
‘But’, the empiricist will reply, ‘how do you think that The Times or the Encyclopaedia Britannica got their information? Surely, if you only carry on your inquiry long enough, you will end up with reports of the observations of eyewitnesses (sometimes called “protocol sentences” or-by yourself-“basic statements”). Admittedly’, the empiricist will continue, ‘books are largely made from other books. Admittedly, a historian, for example, will work from documents. But ultimately, in the last analysis, these other books, or these documents, must have been based upon observations.
‘I read it in The Times'; let us say the assertion ‘The Prime Minister has decided to return to London several days ahead of schedule’. Now assume for a moment that somebody doubts this assertion, or feels the need to investigate its truth. What shall he do? If he has a friend in the Prime Minister’s office, the simplest and most direct way would be to ring him up; and if this friend corroborates the message, then that is that.
‘But’, the empiricist will reply, ‘how do you think that The Times or the Encyclopaedia Britannica got their information? Surely, if you only carry on your inquiry long enough, you will end up with reports of the observations of eyewitnesses (sometimes called “protocol sentences” or-by yourself-“basic statements”). Admittedly’, the empiricist will continue, ‘books are largely made from other books. Admittedly, a historian, for example, will work from documents. But ultimately, in the last analysis, these other books, or these documents, must have been based upon observations.
‘I read it in The Times'; let us say the assertion ‘The Prime Minister has decided to return to London several days ahead of schedule’. Now assume for a moment that somebody doubts this assertion, or feels the need to investigate its truth. What shall he do? If he has a friend in the Prime Minister’s office, the simplest and most direct way would be to ring him up; and if this friend corroborates the message, then that is that.
November 1, 2019
Popper is difficult (I am told), not surprising for a professional philosopher. But "Selections" is not, its essays and arguments culled by a loyal student for the express purpose of introducing Popper's ideas to folks interested in ideas for the sake of ideas. He is clear on science, funny on Marx, and overall--in this volume anyway-- readable and provocative. Philosophy as a discipline has many necessary prerequisites, and the lay reader is easily put off (also, much philosophy is translated by tin-eared hapless worker bees, pitiable in their failure because, well, try the original German ). But Popper on science, specifically on the "third world" from which theories spring, is like a cool breeze on a humid day, a sudden, if temporal, insight into the ineffable. He's not as funny as Bertrand Russell, but you can't have everything--where would you put it? 1.
Footnote 1. Joke attributed to the philosopher and standup comic Steve Reich
Footnote 1. Joke attributed to the philosopher and standup comic Steve Reich
February 4, 2020
A superb book. I knew nothing about Popper before reading, but am walking away very impressed.
Read
February 6, 2025Hasta nunca, Popper
September 20, 2021
Popper is widely known, and extremely influential philosopher of science who doesn’t need an introduction by me. He cannot be avoided whether in academia or just on reddit. In that sense, this Reader is an excellent overview of his thought, and since so much of his thought was both consistent throughout his life, and self referential (his political and social philosophy, is based on his philosophy of science, and so on), a Reader such as this is able to provide the proper background for anyone who wants a working knowledge of Popper’s philosophy.
The book lacks a way to easily navigate to contemporary debates relevant to the selections in question, as they are arranged by theme rather than chronology, but other than that the coverage is excellent.
His philosophy is that of scientific realism matched with epistemological anti-realism, or agnosticism, with some important contradictions. Popper famously accepts Hume’s critique of induction, so essentially, we cannot know anything. He replaces this with the ‘logic of scientific discovery’, the equally famous ‘falsifiability test’ - can we falsify a theory, and therefore replace it with a better one, physics yes, psychoanalysis or Marxism, no. As has been pointed out many times, how this ultimately stays true (or surpasses) Hume’s critique is not clear - Popper’s realism about the empirical, material world (or World 1 as he calls it) is clear to see, but he maintains an agnosticism or relativism regarding knowledge of that material world (World 3), and so the question of Being/Thinking, or representation/mediation, is not addressed sufficiently in my view. This is what Roy Bhaskar has called the ‘epistemological fallacy’.
But of course Bhaskar points out, this is no an epistemological question but fundamentally a metaphysical-ontological one. Where is the ‘logic’ of falsifiability - where does it live, what is it’s ontological status? Does it flow in a determinate way from the concrete World 1, in which case, how can we find out about it? Or does it belong, along with all other forms of logic and maths, to the abstract World 3, in which case, what makes it real? Without answering this, which nowhere in this selection does Popper even attempt to, he is essentially a realist about the noumea, but a relativist, or at least a fuzzy-realist, about phenomena. He’s a Kantian of sorts, except, when it applies to his own philosophy. Popper then has access to the noumea, but no one else, including his beloved scientists, do.
This would be fine, it would be an inconsistent philosophy of science, except insofar as Hume is used to undermine all philosophy of presence from Plato to Hegel, in one all-encompassing sweep. Metaphysics is dead, because of the problem of induction, except for Popper’s own metaphysics (which is what the three worlds ontology is). No mechanism for mediation between World 1, 2, 3 is presented - to look for one is ‘non-science’ (nonsense), despite Popper’s view that all three worlds are real - albeit, some are more real than others. A bit like liberal humanism, we are equal, but….
I would say the influence on Kuhn or Feyerabend, in this respect, is obvious, albeit slightly counter-intuitive, as Popper’s pseudo-Humeanism allows him to weather later post-structuralist critics but also to become the patron saint of the 1990s ‘end of history’ trend, a la Stephen Pinker.
This is the revenge of World 2, the world of class and psychology and motivation, and makes Popper’s political allegiance to the ‘radical centre’ of liberal capitalism (despite the obvious and understandable reasons he was repelled by all forms of totalitarianism), quite easy to discern. It’s a technocratic Panglossian view of the world.
Popper’s scientific realism is well known, and even to some extent, so is the underlying Kantianism - based as it is, on the Neo-Kantian origins of logical positivism. But the false-Humeanism, which stresses our impotence in the face of World 1, is in my view less well known. We cannot know, let alone change, the material conditions, so there is no point in trying. That is not a philosophy of ‘openness’, of the best of all possible worlds, but one of emptiness and greyness.
The book lacks a way to easily navigate to contemporary debates relevant to the selections in question, as they are arranged by theme rather than chronology, but other than that the coverage is excellent.
His philosophy is that of scientific realism matched with epistemological anti-realism, or agnosticism, with some important contradictions. Popper famously accepts Hume’s critique of induction, so essentially, we cannot know anything. He replaces this with the ‘logic of scientific discovery’, the equally famous ‘falsifiability test’ - can we falsify a theory, and therefore replace it with a better one, physics yes, psychoanalysis or Marxism, no. As has been pointed out many times, how this ultimately stays true (or surpasses) Hume’s critique is not clear - Popper’s realism about the empirical, material world (or World 1 as he calls it) is clear to see, but he maintains an agnosticism or relativism regarding knowledge of that material world (World 3), and so the question of Being/Thinking, or representation/mediation, is not addressed sufficiently in my view. This is what Roy Bhaskar has called the ‘epistemological fallacy’.
But of course Bhaskar points out, this is no an epistemological question but fundamentally a metaphysical-ontological one. Where is the ‘logic’ of falsifiability - where does it live, what is it’s ontological status? Does it flow in a determinate way from the concrete World 1, in which case, how can we find out about it? Or does it belong, along with all other forms of logic and maths, to the abstract World 3, in which case, what makes it real? Without answering this, which nowhere in this selection does Popper even attempt to, he is essentially a realist about the noumea, but a relativist, or at least a fuzzy-realist, about phenomena. He’s a Kantian of sorts, except, when it applies to his own philosophy. Popper then has access to the noumea, but no one else, including his beloved scientists, do.
This would be fine, it would be an inconsistent philosophy of science, except insofar as Hume is used to undermine all philosophy of presence from Plato to Hegel, in one all-encompassing sweep. Metaphysics is dead, because of the problem of induction, except for Popper’s own metaphysics (which is what the three worlds ontology is). No mechanism for mediation between World 1, 2, 3 is presented - to look for one is ‘non-science’ (nonsense), despite Popper’s view that all three worlds are real - albeit, some are more real than others. A bit like liberal humanism, we are equal, but….
I would say the influence on Kuhn or Feyerabend, in this respect, is obvious, albeit slightly counter-intuitive, as Popper’s pseudo-Humeanism allows him to weather later post-structuralist critics but also to become the patron saint of the 1990s ‘end of history’ trend, a la Stephen Pinker.
This is the revenge of World 2, the world of class and psychology and motivation, and makes Popper’s political allegiance to the ‘radical centre’ of liberal capitalism (despite the obvious and understandable reasons he was repelled by all forms of totalitarianism), quite easy to discern. It’s a technocratic Panglossian view of the world.
Popper’s scientific realism is well known, and even to some extent, so is the underlying Kantianism - based as it is, on the Neo-Kantian origins of logical positivism. But the false-Humeanism, which stresses our impotence in the face of World 1, is in my view less well known. We cannot know, let alone change, the material conditions, so there is no point in trying. That is not a philosophy of ‘openness’, of the best of all possible worlds, but one of emptiness and greyness.
February 26, 2025
Es un texto que contempla lo crucial del pensamiento temprano y tardío de Karla Popper. La variabilidad de textos dentro del compendio promete no solo un análisis de calidad, sino una amplia gama sobre los principales estudios que realizo el autor en diferentes aristas filosóficas. Dentro, se puede encontrar desde sus escritos más básicos (pero aun complejos en cierto sentido), como lo son la lógica y la epistemología, pero tambien estan los de un criterio superior, como lo son la metafísica aplicada con física matematica y el análisis del espectro psicológico humanitario.
Los textos mas entrañables desde mi punto de vista son los políticos, pues deja un buen sabor de boca al realizar un análisis antropológico completo para ubicar al ser humano dentro de un gran sistema de Estado, contemplando sus esferas primarias (la política, la económica y la social). La critica que realiza a otros autores como son Kant, Hobbes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Bacón, entre otros, es excelente, pues no solamente es una critica vacua, sino un análisis profundo que busca rescatar lo mejor de cada tesis de estos pensadores (como un serio maestro ecléctico), refutando las partes que estima erróneas en la aplicabilidad realista, pero proponiendo soluciones proactivas que se ajusten a esa misma realidad que socializa. Por último, y solo por dar un comentario negativo al compendio, creo que le falto un poco mas de análisis al aspecto de la fenomenología que comparte con Husserl o a la parte de la filosofía psicológica que debate contra Sigmund Freud.
Este libro es una excelente recomendacion para entender los aspectos esenciales pero tambien contextuales de Karl Popper, por lo que lo recomiendo bastante.
Los textos mas entrañables desde mi punto de vista son los políticos, pues deja un buen sabor de boca al realizar un análisis antropológico completo para ubicar al ser humano dentro de un gran sistema de Estado, contemplando sus esferas primarias (la política, la económica y la social). La critica que realiza a otros autores como son Kant, Hobbes, Hume, Hegel, Marx, Engels, Bacón, entre otros, es excelente, pues no solamente es una critica vacua, sino un análisis profundo que busca rescatar lo mejor de cada tesis de estos pensadores (como un serio maestro ecléctico), refutando las partes que estima erróneas en la aplicabilidad realista, pero proponiendo soluciones proactivas que se ajusten a esa misma realidad que socializa. Por último, y solo por dar un comentario negativo al compendio, creo que le falto un poco mas de análisis al aspecto de la fenomenología que comparte con Husserl o a la parte de la filosofía psicológica que debate contra Sigmund Freud.
Este libro es una excelente recomendacion para entender los aspectos esenciales pero tambien contextuales de Karl Popper, por lo que lo recomiendo bastante.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews