The Myth of the Framework

What Hacker News says

1. card_zeroMar 2024
   I think, first of all, you're not wrong, but also, you're mostly wrong. People with completely separate value systems exist, but only theoretically, or historically. I know there's a lot of hand-wringing at the moment about society being fractured and divided, and it may be Pollyannaish of me to say this, but I think we're mostly all on the same side with approximately the same bunch of deep values, by the power of culture (and we more or less all come from the same culture, "modern"). We can have productive discussions, we can work it out. The Myth of the Framework is a relevant book.
   Show morethread
2. qqqAug 2008

     The Fabric of Reality
     The Fountainhead
     The Myth of the Framework
     The Skeptical Environmentalist
     The Machinery of Freedom

   etc

   Ideas are what impresses me most.

   thread
3. curiFeb 2008
   Deutsch only has one book out, which is very good. My only warning is that half of it is sort of off topic (physics, virtual reality, computation, time travel). But that's ok, because of the density of ideas fit into each chapter.

   http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Impl...

   Popper has lots of books. Maybe The Myth of the Framework is a good choice. As I recall, it has content from lectures he gave to people not already familiar with his philosophy, so those parts are especially clear and accessible.

   Proposing an actual moral goal is tricky, because we have to be careful to keep separate the issues of whether there are true moral ideas, and whether my particular idea is true. And very strictly, my idea will not be true. It will have truth to it, but not be perfect. Which may be a confusing concept, because the prevailing epistemology says that knowledge is "justified, true belief" by which it means 100% absolutely, perfectly true. That perspective discounts any possibility of "partial truths" as knowledge. Further, it encourages people to believe they possess (final, certain) truths. But I don't claim to have any of those, nor do I think one can have those.

   If you're OK with all that, I can tell you some tentative guesses at moral truths.

   Show morethread
4. card_zeroMar 2025
   It's been a long time since I read The Myth of the Framework, but I think the concept of "talking past each other" is wrong. On the other hand I often feel this kind of fatigue and don't want to get involved in debates. It probably isn't really about incompatible "level of understanding" (or "frameworks" as in the title), but something else.
   thread
5. xenophanesFeb 2011
   Not a joke.

   You're mistaken in your assumption that I am ignorant of philosophy just b/c A) I didn't cite anyone impressive in my initial comment B) we disagree. Yes I am aware of Chomsky (in more detail than New Yorker articles offer). Yes I am aware of what ontology is.

   Yes I have studied philosophy. Do you want me to counter-cite philosophers for you to read? You might learn something by reading _The Myth of the Framework_ and _The Open Society And Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper.

   If you want to trash freedom, human rights, peaceful cooperation, and other aspects of modern Western civilization, and deny their objective value, don't pretend there is no serious and thoughtful stuff published on the other side and that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

   Next time you want to call someone closed minded, try to do it without ad hominem. Ad hominem arguments don't make you come off as tolerant and willing to have an open-ended discussion where you don't assume in advance who is right.

   Show morethread
6. xenophanesJun 2009
   In chapter 12 Kuhn mistakenly says that Popper is seeking falsifications that necessitate the rejection of a theory. He then points out that falsifications are imperfect, so that is problematic. That criticism would be correct, but Popper is not seeking to necessitate the rejection of any theory. Popper is a fallibilist who does not seek perfect or final falsifications, nor does he seek to justify or prove falsifications. So in short, Kuhn says there are certain difficulties, which he is correct about, and he says Popper's theory faces them, which he has wrong on account of misunderstanding Popper's theory. BTW Popper was aware of the same difficulties Kuhn brings up, and sometimes uses them in his arguments (they are not problematic for Popper's conjectural knowledge approach, but they are problematic for many other approaches).

   In the postscript section 5, Kuhn says communication is always partial, so in a debate we can never prove the other guy is wrong in a way he must accept. This is the same sort of thing as before, and it is basically correct, but Popper is aware of it and his theories are compatible with it. One way Popper and Kuhn do contradict in this arena is about how valuable partial communication is. Kuhn is pessimistic about partial communication across paradigms, but Popper is more optimistic and says by an effort we can learn from each other even across paradigms/cultures/frameworks (see Popper's _The Myth of the Framework_, title essay).

   I looked through ch8 also, but didn't spot any criticism of Popper's falsificationism. If you are still convinced it is there, please explain it in your own words or site specific paragraphs.

   PS regarding justificationism, the prevailing idea of knowledge is that it is justified true belief. This can be found in the dictionary or any intro philosophy textbook.

   PPS It is unfortunate that PG's nested thread rate limiting is hiding the reply link on this comment. I think this is a perfectly good, respectful thread. So it's collateral damage? :(

   Show morethread