#karlpopper — Public Fediverse posts

#KarlPopper 🌟❤️‍🔥✌️🙏

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mcoc4u5vljqnr6j3k6zzcqlf/post/3mvoymkk5zs2x

Karl Popper hätte längst geprüft.

In den 90ern waren sie schon einmal da und es gab einen klaren Konsens: "Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleranz-Paradoxon
"
Uneingeschränkte Toleranz führt mit Notwendigkeit zum Verschwinden der Toleranz. Denn wenn wir die uneingeschränkte Toleranz sogar auf die Intoleranten ausdehnen, wenn wir nicht bereit sind, eine tolerante Gesellschaftsordnung gegen die Angriffe der Intoleranz zu verteidigen, dann werden die Toleranten vernichtet werden und die Toleranz mit ihnen.
"

Deshalb morgen zur Prüf-Demo: https://pruef-demos.de/

#pruef #prüf #politics #depol #karlpopper #demo

Karl Popper hätte längst geprüft.

In den 90ern waren sie schon einmal da und es gab einen klaren Konsens: "Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleranz-Paradoxon
"
Uneingeschränkte Toleranz führt mit Notwendigkeit zum Verschwinden der Toleranz. Denn wenn wir die uneingeschränkte Toleranz sogar auf die Intoleranten ausdehnen, wenn wir nicht bereit sind, eine tolerante Gesellschaftsordnung gegen die Angriffe der Intoleranz zu verteidigen, dann werden die Toleranten vernichtet werden und die Toleranz mit ihnen.
"

Deshalb morgen zur Prüf-Demo: https://pruef-demos.de/

#pruef #prüf #politics #depol #karlpopper #demo

Karl Popper hätte längst geprüft.

In den 90ern waren sie schon einmal da und es gab einen klaren Konsens: "Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleranz-Paradoxon
"
Uneingeschränkte Toleranz führt mit Notwendigkeit zum Verschwinden der Toleranz. Denn wenn wir die uneingeschränkte Toleranz sogar auf die Intoleranten ausdehnen, wenn wir nicht bereit sind, eine tolerante Gesellschaftsordnung gegen die Angriffe der Intoleranz zu verteidigen, dann werden die Toleranten vernichtet werden und die Toleranz mit ihnen.
"

Deshalb morgen zur Prüf-Demo: https://pruef-demos.de/

#pruef #prüf #politics #depol #karlpopper #demo

Karl Popper hätte längst geprüft.

In den 90ern waren sie schon einmal da und es gab einen klaren Konsens: "Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleranz-Paradoxon
"
Uneingeschränkte Toleranz führt mit Notwendigkeit zum Verschwinden der Toleranz. Denn wenn wir die uneingeschränkte Toleranz sogar auf die Intoleranten ausdehnen, wenn wir nicht bereit sind, eine tolerante Gesellschaftsordnung gegen die Angriffe der Intoleranz zu verteidigen, dann werden die Toleranten vernichtet werden und die Toleranz mit ihnen.
"

Deshalb morgen zur Prüf-Demo: https://pruef-demos.de/

#pruef #prüf #politics #depol #karlpopper #demo

Karl Popper hätte längst geprüft.

In den 90ern waren sie schon einmal da und es gab einen klaren Konsens: "Keine Toleranz für die Intoleranz".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toleranz-Paradoxon
"
Uneingeschränkte Toleranz führt mit Notwendigkeit zum Verschwinden der Toleranz. Denn wenn wir die uneingeschränkte Toleranz sogar auf die Intoleranten ausdehnen, wenn wir nicht bereit sind, eine tolerante Gesellschaftsordnung gegen die Angriffe der Intoleranz zu verteidigen, dann werden die Toleranten vernichtet werden und die Toleranz mit ihnen.
"

Deshalb morgen zur Prüf-Demo: https://pruef-demos.de/

#pruef #prüf #politics #depol #karlpopper #demo

„Damit möchte ich nicht sagen, dass wir z. B. intolerante Philosophien auf jeden Fall gewaltsam unterdrücken sollten; solange wir ihnen durch rationale Argumente beikommen können und solange wir sie durch die öffentliche Meinung in Schranken halten können, wäre ihre Unterdrückung sicher höchst unvernünftig. Aber wir sollten für uns das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, sie, wenn nötig, mit Gewalt zu unterdrücken, denn es kann sich leicht herausstellen, dass ihre Vertreter nicht bereit sind, mit uns auf der Ebene rationaler Diskussion zusammenzutreffen, und beginnen, das Argumentieren als solches zu verwerfen; sie können ihren Anhängern verbieten, auf rationale Argumente – die sie ein Täuschungsmanöver nennen – zu hören, und sie werden ihnen vielleicht den Rat geben, Argumente mit Fäusten und Pistolen zu beantworten.

Wir sollten daher im Namen der Toleranz das Recht für uns in Anspruch nehmen, die Unduldsamen nicht zu dulden. Wir sollten geltend machen, dass sich jede Bewegung, die die Intoleranz predigt, außerhalb des Gesetzes stellt, und wir sollten eine Aufforderung zur Intoleranz und Verfolgung als ebenso verbrecherisch behandeln wie eine Aufforderung zum Mord, zum Raub oder zur Wiedereinführung des Sklavenhandels.“

#KarlPopper #toleranzparadoxon

„Damit möchte ich nicht sagen, dass wir z. B. intolerante Philosophien auf jeden Fall gewaltsam unterdrücken sollten; solange wir ihnen durch rationale Argumente beikommen können und solange wir sie durch die öffentliche Meinung in Schranken halten können, wäre ihre Unterdrückung sicher höchst unvernünftig. Aber wir sollten für uns das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, sie, wenn nötig, mit Gewalt zu unterdrücken, denn es kann sich leicht herausstellen, dass ihre Vertreter nicht bereit sind, mit uns auf der Ebene rationaler Diskussion zusammenzutreffen, und beginnen, das Argumentieren als solches zu verwerfen; sie können ihren Anhängern verbieten, auf rationale Argumente – die sie ein Täuschungsmanöver nennen – zu hören, und sie werden ihnen vielleicht den Rat geben, Argumente mit Fäusten und Pistolen zu beantworten.

Wir sollten daher im Namen der Toleranz das Recht für uns in Anspruch nehmen, die Unduldsamen nicht zu dulden. Wir sollten geltend machen, dass sich jede Bewegung, die die Intoleranz predigt, außerhalb des Gesetzes stellt, und wir sollten eine Aufforderung zur Intoleranz und Verfolgung als ebenso verbrecherisch behandeln wie eine Aufforderung zum Mord, zum Raub oder zur Wiedereinführung des Sklavenhandels.“

#KarlPopper #toleranzparadoxon

„Damit möchte ich nicht sagen, dass wir z. B. intolerante Philosophien auf jeden Fall gewaltsam unterdrücken sollten; solange wir ihnen durch rationale Argumente beikommen können und solange wir sie durch die öffentliche Meinung in Schranken halten können, wäre ihre Unterdrückung sicher höchst unvernünftig. Aber wir sollten für uns das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, sie, wenn nötig, mit Gewalt zu unterdrücken, denn es kann sich leicht herausstellen, dass ihre Vertreter nicht bereit sind, mit uns auf der Ebene rationaler Diskussion zusammenzutreffen, und beginnen, das Argumentieren als solches zu verwerfen; sie können ihren Anhängern verbieten, auf rationale Argumente – die sie ein Täuschungsmanöver nennen – zu hören, und sie werden ihnen vielleicht den Rat geben, Argumente mit Fäusten und Pistolen zu beantworten.

Wir sollten daher im Namen der Toleranz das Recht für uns in Anspruch nehmen, die Unduldsamen nicht zu dulden. Wir sollten geltend machen, dass sich jede Bewegung, die die Intoleranz predigt, außerhalb des Gesetzes stellt, und wir sollten eine Aufforderung zur Intoleranz und Verfolgung als ebenso verbrecherisch behandeln wie eine Aufforderung zum Mord, zum Raub oder zur Wiedereinführung des Sklavenhandels.“

#KarlPopper #toleranzparadoxon

„Damit möchte ich nicht sagen, dass wir z. B. intolerante Philosophien auf jeden Fall gewaltsam unterdrücken sollten; solange wir ihnen durch rationale Argumente beikommen können und solange wir sie durch die öffentliche Meinung in Schranken halten können, wäre ihre Unterdrückung sicher höchst unvernünftig. Aber wir sollten für uns das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, sie, wenn nötig, mit Gewalt zu unterdrücken, denn es kann sich leicht herausstellen, dass ihre Vertreter nicht bereit sind, mit uns auf der Ebene rationaler Diskussion zusammenzutreffen, und beginnen, das Argumentieren als solches zu verwerfen; sie können ihren Anhängern verbieten, auf rationale Argumente – die sie ein Täuschungsmanöver nennen – zu hören, und sie werden ihnen vielleicht den Rat geben, Argumente mit Fäusten und Pistolen zu beantworten.

Wir sollten daher im Namen der Toleranz das Recht für uns in Anspruch nehmen, die Unduldsamen nicht zu dulden. Wir sollten geltend machen, dass sich jede Bewegung, die die Intoleranz predigt, außerhalb des Gesetzes stellt, und wir sollten eine Aufforderung zur Intoleranz und Verfolgung als ebenso verbrecherisch behandeln wie eine Aufforderung zum Mord, zum Raub oder zur Wiedereinführung des Sklavenhandels.“

#KarlPopper #toleranzparadoxon

„Damit möchte ich nicht sagen, dass wir z. B. intolerante Philosophien auf jeden Fall gewaltsam unterdrücken sollten; solange wir ihnen durch rationale Argumente beikommen können und solange wir sie durch die öffentliche Meinung in Schranken halten können, wäre ihre Unterdrückung sicher höchst unvernünftig. Aber wir sollten für uns das Recht in Anspruch nehmen, sie, wenn nötig, mit Gewalt zu unterdrücken, denn es kann sich leicht herausstellen, dass ihre Vertreter nicht bereit sind, mit uns auf der Ebene rationaler Diskussion zusammenzutreffen, und beginnen, das Argumentieren als solches zu verwerfen; sie können ihren Anhängern verbieten, auf rationale Argumente – die sie ein Täuschungsmanöver nennen – zu hören, und sie werden ihnen vielleicht den Rat geben, Argumente mit Fäusten und Pistolen zu beantworten.

Wir sollten daher im Namen der Toleranz das Recht für uns in Anspruch nehmen, die Unduldsamen nicht zu dulden. Wir sollten geltend machen, dass sich jede Bewegung, die die Intoleranz predigt, außerhalb des Gesetzes stellt, und wir sollten eine Aufforderung zur Intoleranz und Verfolgung als ebenso verbrecherisch behandeln wie eine Aufforderung zum Mord, zum Raub oder zur Wiedereinführung des Sklavenhandels.“

#KarlPopper #toleranzparadoxon

Kurz verlinkt

Mehr Karl Popper für Sachsen-Anhalt

@unnon89 @SchreibeEinfach ich vertrete die Meinung von #KarlPopper:
"Wer in einer toleranten Gesellschaft leben will, sollte intolerant gegen Intoleranz sein"

Damit unterstütze ich @campact Bemühen auch wenn dafür bestimmt viele über ihren eigenen Schatten springen mussten. #UniteAndNotDevide

@unnon89 @SchreibeEinfach ich vertrete die Meinung von #KarlPopper:
"Wer in einer toleranten Gesellschaft leben will, sollte intolerant gegen Intoleranz sein"

Damit unterstütze ich @campact Bemühen auch wenn dafür bestimmt viele über ihren eigenen Schatten springen mussten. #UniteAndNotDevide

@unnon89 @SchreibeEinfach ich vertrete die Meinung von #KarlPopper:
"Wer in einer toleranten Gesellschaft leben will, sollte intolerant gegen Intoleranz sein"

Damit unterstütze ich @campact Bemühen auch wenn dafür bestimmt viele über ihren eigenen Schatten springen mussten. #UniteAndNotDevide

@unnon89 @SchreibeEinfach ich vertrete die Meinung von #KarlPopper:
"Wer in einer toleranten Gesellschaft leben will, sollte intolerant gegen Intoleranz sein"

Damit unterstütze ich @campact Bemühen auch wenn dafür bestimmt viele über ihren eigenen Schatten springen mussten. #UniteAndNotDevide

@unnon89 @SchreibeEinfach ich vertrete die Meinung von #KarlPopper:
"Wer in einer toleranten Gesellschaft leben will, sollte intolerant gegen Intoleranz sein"

Damit unterstütze ich @campact Bemühen auch wenn dafür bestimmt viele über ihren eigenen Schatten springen mussten. #UniteAndNotDevide

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/freud-psychoanalysis-theories-brain-science/687957/?gift=1ga2TvL-DbuHDQIcYF7oR8dogJMMXp6vZXpySsUqqIs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sh

Freud's place in the history of psychology strikes me as not unlike that of Kepler in the history of astronomy; many beliefs these pioneers considered foundational are in fact false, yet to deny the importance of these men in the development of science is perverse.

>>...we need to go back to Freud’s true aim: to treat the soul, not by ministering to the brain, as modern biological psychiatry does, but “by accepting that the ‘soul’—construed as the experiencing, active, living ‘I’—is a part of nature.” <<

I am not well informed enough to comment on the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis. In fact, I am more interested in Freudian theory as a contribution to a naturalistic but nonreductive understanding of the mind.

With regard to the paragraph mentioning Karl Popper's condemnation of psychoanalysis as a "pseudoscience", we should note that few philosophers of science today accept Popper's claim that "falsifiability" provides a criterion that we can apply to separate the scientific from the pseudoscientific. We need to end the simplistic reliance on this supposed criterion and accept instead the complexity and difficulty of characterizing scientific inquiry and knowledge.

#Psychoanalysis #Freud #MarkSolms #Psychology #Psychiatry #Neuroscience #Science #DemarcationProblem #KarlPopper

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/freud-psychoanalysis-theories-brain-science/687957/?gift=1ga2TvL-DbuHDQIcYF7oR8dogJMMXp6vZXpySsUqqIs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sh

Freud's place in the history of psychology strikes me as not unlike that of Kepler in the history of astronomy; many beliefs these pioneers considered foundational are in fact false, yet to deny the importance of these men in the development of science is perverse.

>>...we need to go back to Freud’s true aim: to treat the soul, not by ministering to the brain, as modern biological psychiatry does, but “by accepting that the ‘soul’—construed as the experiencing, active, living ‘I’—is a part of nature.” <<

I am not well informed enough to comment on the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis. In fact, I am more interested in Freudian theory as a contribution to a naturalistic but nonreductive understanding of the mind.

With regard to the paragraph mentioning Karl Popper's condemnation of psychoanalysis as a "pseudoscience", we should note that few philosophers of science today accept Popper's claim that "falsifiability" provides a criterion that we can apply to separate the scientific from the pseudoscientific. We need to end the simplistic reliance on this supposed criterion and accept instead the complexity and difficulty of characterizing scientific inquiry and knowledge.

#Psychoanalysis #Freud #MarkSolms #Psychology #Psychiatry #Neuroscience #Science #DemarcationProblem #KarlPopper

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/freud-psychoanalysis-theories-brain-science/687957/?gift=1ga2TvL-DbuHDQIcYF7oR8dogJMMXp6vZXpySsUqqIs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sh

Freud's place in the history of psychology strikes me as not unlike that of Kepler in the history of astronomy; many beliefs these pioneers considered foundational are in fact false, yet to deny the importance of these men in the development of science is perverse.

>>...we need to go back to Freud’s true aim: to treat the soul, not by ministering to the brain, as modern biological psychiatry does, but “by accepting that the ‘soul’—construed as the experiencing, active, living ‘I’—is a part of nature.” <<

I am not well informed enough to comment on the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis. In fact, I am more interested in Freudian theory as a contribution to a naturalistic but nonreductive understanding of the mind.

With regard to the paragraph mentioning Karl Popper's condemnation of psychoanalysis as a "pseudoscience", we should note that few philosophers of science today accept Popper's claim that "falsifiability" provides a criterion that we can apply to separate the scientific from the pseudoscientific. We need to end the simplistic reliance on this supposed criterion and accept instead the complexity and difficulty of characterizing scientific inquiry and knowledge.

#Psychoanalysis #Freud #MarkSolms #Psychology #Psychiatry #Neuroscience #Science #DemarcationProblem #KarlPopper

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/freud-psychoanalysis-theories-brain-science/687957/?gift=1ga2TvL-DbuHDQIcYF7oR8dogJMMXp6vZXpySsUqqIs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sh

Freud's place in the history of psychology strikes me as not unlike that of Kepler in the history of astronomy; many beliefs these pioneers considered foundational are in fact false, yet to deny the importance of these men in the development of science is perverse.

>>...we need to go back to Freud’s true aim: to treat the soul, not by ministering to the brain, as modern biological psychiatry does, but “by accepting that the ‘soul’—construed as the experiencing, active, living ‘I’—is a part of nature.” <<

I am not well informed enough to comment on the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis. In fact, I am more interested in Freudian theory as a contribution to a naturalistic but nonreductive understanding of the mind.

With regard to the paragraph mentioning Karl Popper's condemnation of psychoanalysis as a "pseudoscience", we should note that few philosophers of science today accept Popper's claim that "falsifiability" provides a criterion that we can apply to separate the scientific from the pseudoscientific. We need to end the simplistic reliance on this supposed criterion and accept instead the complexity and difficulty of characterizing scientific inquiry and knowledge.

#Psychoanalysis #Freud #MarkSolms #Psychology #Psychiatry #Neuroscience #Science #DemarcationProblem #KarlPopper

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/09/freud-psychoanalysis-theories-brain-science/687957/?gift=1ga2TvL-DbuHDQIcYF7oR8dogJMMXp6vZXpySsUqqIs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sh

Freud's place in the history of psychology strikes me as not unlike that of Kepler in the history of astronomy; many beliefs these pioneers considered foundational are in fact false, yet to deny the importance of these men in the development of science is perverse.

>>...we need to go back to Freud’s true aim: to treat the soul, not by ministering to the brain, as modern biological psychiatry does, but “by accepting that the ‘soul’—construed as the experiencing, active, living ‘I’—is a part of nature.” <<

I am not well informed enough to comment on the therapeutic value of psychoanalysis. In fact, I am more interested in Freudian theory as a contribution to a naturalistic but nonreductive understanding of the mind.

With regard to the paragraph mentioning Karl Popper's condemnation of psychoanalysis as a "pseudoscience", we should note that few philosophers of science today accept Popper's claim that "falsifiability" provides a criterion that we can apply to separate the scientific from the pseudoscientific. We need to end the simplistic reliance on this supposed criterion and accept instead the complexity and difficulty of characterizing scientific inquiry and knowledge.

#Psychoanalysis #Freud #MarkSolms #Psychology #Psychiatry #Neuroscience #Science #DemarcationProblem #KarlPopper

#KarlPopper 🙏✌️👇🐬🍀🐳👍

#GegenFalschePropheten

#Falsifizierung, keine #Verifizierung !!**

RE: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mcoc4u5vljqnr6j3k6zzcqlf/post/3mroqch3ovc23

“Historical oblivion is the default, not the exception”*…

Indeed. And that’s especially true of the institutions that guard the archives that are our cultural heritage. The ongoing transition from physical media sales to digital licensing markets has unleashed a new wave of archival ephemerality, which endangers these memory institutions’ core operations and threatens to plunge society into a digital dark age.

The stakes are high. As Haruki Murakami observed: “Robbing people of their actual history is the same as robbing them of part of themselves. It’s a crime… If our collective memory is taken from us – is rewritten – we lose the ability to sustain our true selves.”

Michael Menna (a Stanford Law Fellow who co-authored the “Our Future Memory” manifesto) and Lila Bailey (Senior Policy Counsel at one of the world’s most crucial repositories, The Internet Archive), call for four digital rights that would allow libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”) to uphold their shared public service mission of preserving history and providing access to information…

… We are living through a troubling paradox: Digital technologies have enabled the production and distribution of more information than ever, yet access to that information isincreasingly fragmented and fragile. These technologies should permit us to engage and learn from all the digital content at our fingertips. Instead, many of the basic rights we grew accustomed to in the physical world are now being overtaken by aggressive market tactics that do not reflect the public-interest values the law was meant to protect. If copyright, privacy, and other regulatory frameworks were designed to balance the interests of creators and users with the public’s need to access and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge, then our increasingly digital information economy has thrown that balance out of whack.

In this new media environment, publishers and other content providers have unprecedented power to control knowledge and culture with technical restrictions and exclusionary licensing terms. Governments also have an easier time censoring what people can see by scrubbing their websites and pressuring commercial platforms to do the same. These sudden changes will feel familiar to anyone who has logged onto a streaming service or social media app to find a movie or news story suddenly missing. But for libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”), it poses an existential risk to
their core public service mission of preserving culture and protecting history. When these organizations can no longer collect and provide access to digital materials, members of the public cannot place their trust in a stable record—which affects their ability to confidently participate in democratic discourse.

We write this paper from our perspective at the Internet Archive, a nonprofit research library that specializes in web archiving, digitization, and the preservation of media in all forms. We feel the harms from these shifts firsthand and hear many of the same complaints from our partner memory institutions around the world. That shared frustration with today’s digital landscape has given rise to an emerging consensus among libraries, archives, museums, and their allies, calling for better legal protections and practical options to continue their services and preserve cultural memory in today’s information age.

This two-part paper (1) presents the looming threat of “vanishing culture” as a first-order political crisis, and (2) discusses the key role that libraries and other memory institutions can play in meeting that crisis.2 In the first part, we examine the underlying causes of vanishing culture and trace its ripple effects along several different facets of modern life: (a) educational resources, (b) journalistic integrity, (c) civic engagement, (d) religious study, and (e) environmental policy. In the second part, we reintroduce a framework of four rights that would ensure memory institutions’ ability to work together to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital materials. This framework rests on the simple proposition that memory institutions should be allowed to do the same things in the digital world that they’ve historically done in the physical world. It originated in the 2024 statement titled Four Digital Rights for Protecting Memory Institutions Online3 before it became a global rallying cry for the Our Future Memory movement and its growing list of library, archive, and museum signatories. Together, these memory institutions are striving to combat the political causes and effects of vanishing culture by speaking with one voice to the importance of memory work in an age of digital ephemerality. That is why we call on all memory institutions, large and small, to sign onto the Statement and join the movement. Individuals and communities need memory institutions to educate themselves and freely participate in civic life, and every time a content provider lets critical information disappear online, it offers further proof that today’s digital markets alone do not constitute a viable alternative. If things do not change soon, we risk sleepwalking into a future where both memory institutions and the public they serve will become passive consumers, rather than active stewards of human knowledge…

Menna and Bailey explain the situation; unpack the four rights they propose: collection, preservation, access, and collaboration; then issue a call to action.

Eminently worth reading in full: “The Political Threats of Vanishing Culture and the Need to Protect Our Future Memory” (PDF here)

See also Vanishing Culture (full PDF here)

And consider joining me in supporting the Internet Archive.

* Jordan Mechner

###

As we preserve and share, we might send open birthday greetings to a man who would surely have understood the importance of Menna’s and Bailey’s arguments: Sir Karl Raimund Popper; he was born on this date in 1902.  One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Popper is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.  (Or more simply put, whereas classical inductive approaches considered hypotheses false until proven true, Popper reversed the logic: conclusions drawn from an empirical finding are true until proven false.)

Popper was also a powerful critic of historicism in political thought, and (in books like The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism) an enemy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (in which role he was a mentor to George Soros).

 source

“Historical oblivion is the default, not the exception”*…

Indeed. And that’s especially true of the institutions that guard the archives that are our cultural heritage. The ongoing transition from physical media sales to digital licensing markets has unleashed a new wave of archival ephemerality, which endangers these memory institutions’ core operations and threatens to plunge society into a digital dark age.

The stakes are high. As Haruki Murakami observed: “Robbing people of their actual history is the same as robbing them of part of themselves. It’s a crime… If our collective memory is taken from us – is rewritten – we lose the ability to sustain our true selves.”

Michael Menna (a Stanford Law Fellow who co-authored the “Our Future Memory” manifesto) and Lila Bailey (Senior Policy Counsel at one of the world’s most crucial repositories, The Internet Archive), call for four digital rights that would allow libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”) to uphold their shared public service mission of preserving history and providing access to information…

… We are living through a troubling paradox: Digital technologies have enabled the production and distribution of more information than ever, yet access to that information isincreasingly fragmented and fragile. These technologies should permit us to engage and learn from all the digital content at our fingertips. Instead, many of the basic rights we grew accustomed to in the physical world are now being overtaken by aggressive market tactics that do not reflect the public-interest values the law was meant to protect. If copyright, privacy, and other regulatory frameworks were designed to balance the interests of creators and users with the public’s need to access and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge, then our increasingly digital information economy has thrown that balance out of whack.

In this new media environment, publishers and other content providers have unprecedented power to control knowledge and culture with technical restrictions and exclusionary licensing terms. Governments also have an easier time censoring what people can see by scrubbing their websites and pressuring commercial platforms to do the same. These sudden changes will feel familiar to anyone who has logged onto a streaming service or social media app to find a movie or news story suddenly missing. But for libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”), it poses an existential risk to
their core public service mission of preserving culture and protecting history. When these organizations can no longer collect and provide access to digital materials, members of the public cannot place their trust in a stable record—which affects their ability to confidently participate in democratic discourse.

We write this paper from our perspective at the Internet Archive, a nonprofit research library that specializes in web archiving, digitization, and the preservation of media in all forms. We feel the harms from these shifts firsthand and hear many of the same complaints from our partner memory institutions around the world. That shared frustration with today’s digital landscape has given rise to an emerging consensus among libraries, archives, museums, and their allies, calling for better legal protections and practical options to continue their services and preserve cultural memory in today’s information age.

This two-part paper (1) presents the looming threat of “vanishing culture” as a first-order political crisis, and (2) discusses the key role that libraries and other memory institutions can play in meeting that crisis.2 In the first part, we examine the underlying causes of vanishing culture and trace its ripple effects along several different facets of modern life: (a) educational resources, (b) journalistic integrity, (c) civic engagement, (d) religious study, and (e) environmental policy. In the second part, we reintroduce a framework of four rights that would ensure memory institutions’ ability to work together to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital materials. This framework rests on the simple proposition that memory institutions should be allowed to do the same things in the digital world that they’ve historically done in the physical world. It originated in the 2024 statement titled Four Digital Rights for Protecting Memory Institutions Online3 before it became a global rallying cry for the Our Future Memory movement and its growing list of library, archive, and museum signatories. Together, these memory institutions are striving to combat the political causes and effects of vanishing culture by speaking with one voice to the importance of memory work in an age of digital ephemerality. That is why we call on all memory institutions, large and small, to sign onto the Statement and join the movement. Individuals and communities need memory institutions to educate themselves and freely participate in civic life, and every time a content provider lets critical information disappear online, it offers further proof that today’s digital markets alone do not constitute a viable alternative. If things do not change soon, we risk sleepwalking into a future where both memory institutions and the public they serve will become passive consumers, rather than active stewards of human knowledge…

Menna and Bailey explain the situation; unpack the four rights they propose: collection, preservation, access, and collaboration; then issue a call to action.

Eminently worth reading in full: “The Political Threats of Vanishing Culture and the Need to Protect Our Future Memory” (PDF here)

See also Vanishing Culture (full PDF here)

And consider joining me in supporting the Internet Archive.

* Jordan Mechner

###

As we preserve and share, we might send open birthday greetings to a man who would surely have understood the importance of Menna’s and Bailey’s arguments: Sir Karl Raimund Popper; he was born on this date in 1902.  One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Popper is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.  (Or more simply put, whereas classical inductive approaches considered hypotheses false until proven true, Popper reversed the logic: conclusions drawn from an empirical finding are true until proven false.)

Popper was also a powerful critic of historicism in political thought, and (in books like The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism) an enemy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (in which role he was a mentor to George Soros).

 source

“Historical oblivion is the default, not the exception”*…

Indeed. And that’s especially true of the institutions that guard the archives that are our cultural heritage. The ongoing transition from physical media sales to digital licensing markets has unleashed a new wave of archival ephemerality, which endangers these memory institutions’ core operations and threatens to plunge society into a digital dark age.

The stakes are high. As Haruki Murakami observed: “Robbing people of their actual history is the same as robbing them of part of themselves. It’s a crime… If our collective memory is taken from us – is rewritten – we lose the ability to sustain our true selves.”

Michael Menna (a Stanford Law Fellow who co-authored the “Our Future Memory” manifesto) and Lila Bailey (Senior Policy Counsel at one of the world’s most crucial repositories, The Internet Archive), call for four digital rights that would allow libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”) to uphold their shared public service mission of preserving history and providing access to information…

… We are living through a troubling paradox: Digital technologies have enabled the production and distribution of more information than ever, yet access to that information isincreasingly fragmented and fragile. These technologies should permit us to engage and learn from all the digital content at our fingertips. Instead, many of the basic rights we grew accustomed to in the physical world are now being overtaken by aggressive market tactics that do not reflect the public-interest values the law was meant to protect. If copyright, privacy, and other regulatory frameworks were designed to balance the interests of creators and users with the public’s need to access and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge, then our increasingly digital information economy has thrown that balance out of whack.

In this new media environment, publishers and other content providers have unprecedented power to control knowledge and culture with technical restrictions and exclusionary licensing terms. Governments also have an easier time censoring what people can see by scrubbing their websites and pressuring commercial platforms to do the same. These sudden changes will feel familiar to anyone who has logged onto a streaming service or social media app to find a movie or news story suddenly missing. But for libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”), it poses an existential risk to
their core public service mission of preserving culture and protecting history. When these organizations can no longer collect and provide access to digital materials, members of the public cannot place their trust in a stable record—which affects their ability to confidently participate in democratic discourse.

We write this paper from our perspective at the Internet Archive, a nonprofit research library that specializes in web archiving, digitization, and the preservation of media in all forms. We feel the harms from these shifts firsthand and hear many of the same complaints from our partner memory institutions around the world. That shared frustration with today’s digital landscape has given rise to an emerging consensus among libraries, archives, museums, and their allies, calling for better legal protections and practical options to continue their services and preserve cultural memory in today’s information age.

This two-part paper (1) presents the looming threat of “vanishing culture” as a first-order political crisis, and (2) discusses the key role that libraries and other memory institutions can play in meeting that crisis.2 In the first part, we examine the underlying causes of vanishing culture and trace its ripple effects along several different facets of modern life: (a) educational resources, (b) journalistic integrity, (c) civic engagement, (d) religious study, and (e) environmental policy. In the second part, we reintroduce a framework of four rights that would ensure memory institutions’ ability to work together to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital materials. This framework rests on the simple proposition that memory institutions should be allowed to do the same things in the digital world that they’ve historically done in the physical world. It originated in the 2024 statement titled Four Digital Rights for Protecting Memory Institutions Online3 before it became a global rallying cry for the Our Future Memory movement and its growing list of library, archive, and museum signatories. Together, these memory institutions are striving to combat the political causes and effects of vanishing culture by speaking with one voice to the importance of memory work in an age of digital ephemerality. That is why we call on all memory institutions, large and small, to sign onto the Statement and join the movement. Individuals and communities need memory institutions to educate themselves and freely participate in civic life, and every time a content provider lets critical information disappear online, it offers further proof that today’s digital markets alone do not constitute a viable alternative. If things do not change soon, we risk sleepwalking into a future where both memory institutions and the public they serve will become passive consumers, rather than active stewards of human knowledge…

Menna and Bailey explain the situation; unpack the four rights they propose: collection, preservation, access, and collaboration; then issue a call to action.

Eminently worth reading in full: “The Political Threats of Vanishing Culture and the Need to Protect Our Future Memory” (PDF here)

See also Vanishing Culture (full PDF here)

And consider joining me in supporting the Internet Archive.

* Jordan Mechner

###

As we preserve and share, we might send open birthday greetings to a man who would surely have understood the importance of Menna’s and Bailey’s arguments: Sir Karl Raimund Popper; he was born on this date in 1902.  One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Popper is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.  (Or more simply put, whereas classical inductive approaches considered hypotheses false until proven true, Popper reversed the logic: conclusions drawn from an empirical finding are true until proven false.)

Popper was also a powerful critic of historicism in political thought, and (in books like The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism) an enemy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (in which role he was a mentor to George Soros).

 source

“Historical oblivion is the default, not the exception”*…

Indeed. And that’s especially true of the institutions that guard the archives that are our cultural heritage. The ongoing transition from physical media sales to digital licensing markets has unleashed a new wave of archival ephemerality, which endangers these memory institutions’ core operations and threatens to plunge society into a digital dark age.

The stakes are high. As Haruki Murakami observed: “Robbing people of their actual history is the same as robbing them of part of themselves. It’s a crime… If our collective memory is taken from us – is rewritten – we lose the ability to sustain our true selves.”

Michael Menna (a Stanford Law Fellow who co-authored the “Our Future Memory” manifesto) and Lila Bailey (Senior Policy Counsel at one of the world’s most crucial repositories, The Internet Archive), call for four digital rights that would allow libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”) to uphold their shared public service mission of preserving history and providing access to information…

… We are living through a troubling paradox: Digital technologies have enabled the production and distribution of more information than ever, yet access to that information isincreasingly fragmented and fragile. These technologies should permit us to engage and learn from all the digital content at our fingertips. Instead, many of the basic rights we grew accustomed to in the physical world are now being overtaken by aggressive market tactics that do not reflect the public-interest values the law was meant to protect. If copyright, privacy, and other regulatory frameworks were designed to balance the interests of creators and users with the public’s need to access and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge, then our increasingly digital information economy has thrown that balance out of whack.

In this new media environment, publishers and other content providers have unprecedented power to control knowledge and culture with technical restrictions and exclusionary licensing terms. Governments also have an easier time censoring what people can see by scrubbing their websites and pressuring commercial platforms to do the same. These sudden changes will feel familiar to anyone who has logged onto a streaming service or social media app to find a movie or news story suddenly missing. But for libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”), it poses an existential risk to
their core public service mission of preserving culture and protecting history. When these organizations can no longer collect and provide access to digital materials, members of the public cannot place their trust in a stable record—which affects their ability to confidently participate in democratic discourse.

We write this paper from our perspective at the Internet Archive, a nonprofit research library that specializes in web archiving, digitization, and the preservation of media in all forms. We feel the harms from these shifts firsthand and hear many of the same complaints from our partner memory institutions around the world. That shared frustration with today’s digital landscape has given rise to an emerging consensus among libraries, archives, museums, and their allies, calling for better legal protections and practical options to continue their services and preserve cultural memory in today’s information age.

This two-part paper (1) presents the looming threat of “vanishing culture” as a first-order political crisis, and (2) discusses the key role that libraries and other memory institutions can play in meeting that crisis.2 In the first part, we examine the underlying causes of vanishing culture and trace its ripple effects along several different facets of modern life: (a) educational resources, (b) journalistic integrity, (c) civic engagement, (d) religious study, and (e) environmental policy. In the second part, we reintroduce a framework of four rights that would ensure memory institutions’ ability to work together to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital materials. This framework rests on the simple proposition that memory institutions should be allowed to do the same things in the digital world that they’ve historically done in the physical world. It originated in the 2024 statement titled Four Digital Rights for Protecting Memory Institutions Online3 before it became a global rallying cry for the Our Future Memory movement and its growing list of library, archive, and museum signatories. Together, these memory institutions are striving to combat the political causes and effects of vanishing culture by speaking with one voice to the importance of memory work in an age of digital ephemerality. That is why we call on all memory institutions, large and small, to sign onto the Statement and join the movement. Individuals and communities need memory institutions to educate themselves and freely participate in civic life, and every time a content provider lets critical information disappear online, it offers further proof that today’s digital markets alone do not constitute a viable alternative. If things do not change soon, we risk sleepwalking into a future where both memory institutions and the public they serve will become passive consumers, rather than active stewards of human knowledge…

Menna and Bailey explain the situation; unpack the four rights they propose: collection, preservation, access, and collaboration; then issue a call to action.

Eminently worth reading in full: “The Political Threats of Vanishing Culture and the Need to Protect Our Future Memory” (PDF here)

See also Vanishing Culture (full PDF here)

And consider joining me in supporting the Internet Archive.

* Jordan Mechner

###

As we preserve and share, we might send open birthday greetings to a man who would surely have understood the importance of Menna’s and Bailey’s arguments: Sir Karl Raimund Popper; he was born on this date in 1902.  One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Popper is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.  (Or more simply put, whereas classical inductive approaches considered hypotheses false until proven true, Popper reversed the logic: conclusions drawn from an empirical finding are true until proven false.)

Popper was also a powerful critic of historicism in political thought, and (in books like The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism) an enemy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (in which role he was a mentor to George Soros).

 source

“Historical oblivion is the default, not the exception”*…

Indeed. And that’s especially true of the institutions that guard the archives that are our cultural heritage. The ongoing transition from physical media sales to digital licensing markets has unleashed a new wave of archival ephemerality, which endangers these memory institutions’ core operations and threatens to plunge society into a digital dark age.

The stakes are high. As Haruki Murakami observed: “Robbing people of their actual history is the same as robbing them of part of themselves. It’s a crime… If our collective memory is taken from us – is rewritten – we lose the ability to sustain our true selves.”

Michael Menna (a Stanford Law Fellow who co-authored the “Our Future Memory” manifesto) and Lila Bailey (Senior Policy Counsel at one of the world’s most crucial repositories, The Internet Archive), call for four digital rights that would allow libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”) to uphold their shared public service mission of preserving history and providing access to information…

… We are living through a troubling paradox: Digital technologies have enabled the production and distribution of more information than ever, yet access to that information isincreasingly fragmented and fragile. These technologies should permit us to engage and learn from all the digital content at our fingertips. Instead, many of the basic rights we grew accustomed to in the physical world are now being overtaken by aggressive market tactics that do not reflect the public-interest values the law was meant to protect. If copyright, privacy, and other regulatory frameworks were designed to balance the interests of creators and users with the public’s need to access and contribute to the wealth of human knowledge, then our increasingly digital information economy has thrown that balance out of whack.

In this new media environment, publishers and other content providers have unprecedented power to control knowledge and culture with technical restrictions and exclusionary licensing terms. Governments also have an easier time censoring what people can see by scrubbing their websites and pressuring commercial platforms to do the same. These sudden changes will feel familiar to anyone who has logged onto a streaming service or social media app to find a movie or news story suddenly missing. But for libraries, archives, museums, and other cultural heritage organizations (“memory institutions”), it poses an existential risk to
their core public service mission of preserving culture and protecting history. When these organizations can no longer collect and provide access to digital materials, members of the public cannot place their trust in a stable record—which affects their ability to confidently participate in democratic discourse.

We write this paper from our perspective at the Internet Archive, a nonprofit research library that specializes in web archiving, digitization, and the preservation of media in all forms. We feel the harms from these shifts firsthand and hear many of the same complaints from our partner memory institutions around the world. That shared frustration with today’s digital landscape has given rise to an emerging consensus among libraries, archives, museums, and their allies, calling for better legal protections and practical options to continue their services and preserve cultural memory in today’s information age.

This two-part paper (1) presents the looming threat of “vanishing culture” as a first-order political crisis, and (2) discusses the key role that libraries and other memory institutions can play in meeting that crisis.2 In the first part, we examine the underlying causes of vanishing culture and trace its ripple effects along several different facets of modern life: (a) educational resources, (b) journalistic integrity, (c) civic engagement, (d) religious study, and (e) environmental policy. In the second part, we reintroduce a framework of four rights that would ensure memory institutions’ ability to work together to collect, preserve, and provide access to digital materials. This framework rests on the simple proposition that memory institutions should be allowed to do the same things in the digital world that they’ve historically done in the physical world. It originated in the 2024 statement titled Four Digital Rights for Protecting Memory Institutions Online3 before it became a global rallying cry for the Our Future Memory movement and its growing list of library, archive, and museum signatories. Together, these memory institutions are striving to combat the political causes and effects of vanishing culture by speaking with one voice to the importance of memory work in an age of digital ephemerality. That is why we call on all memory institutions, large and small, to sign onto the Statement and join the movement. Individuals and communities need memory institutions to educate themselves and freely participate in civic life, and every time a content provider lets critical information disappear online, it offers further proof that today’s digital markets alone do not constitute a viable alternative. If things do not change soon, we risk sleepwalking into a future where both memory institutions and the public they serve will become passive consumers, rather than active stewards of human knowledge…

Menna and Bailey explain the situation; unpack the four rights they propose: collection, preservation, access, and collaboration; then issue a call to action.

Eminently worth reading in full: “The Political Threats of Vanishing Culture and the Need to Protect Our Future Memory” (PDF here)

See also Vanishing Culture (full PDF here)

And consider joining me in supporting the Internet Archive.

* Jordan Mechner

###

As we preserve and share, we might send open birthday greetings to a man who would surely have understood the importance of Menna’s and Bailey’s arguments: Sir Karl Raimund Popper; he was born on this date in 1902.  One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Popper is best known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favor of empirical falsification: a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.  (Or more simply put, whereas classical inductive approaches considered hypotheses false until proven true, Popper reversed the logic: conclusions drawn from an empirical finding are true until proven false.)

Popper was also a powerful critic of historicism in political thought, and (in books like The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism) an enemy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism (in which role he was a mentor to George Soros).

 source

Las ciudades de Europa no fueron arrasadas por el multiculturalismo, ni por la liberación sexual, ni por la equidad de géneros, ni por la secularización o la tolerancia religiosa, sino por los gobernantes y militares que preferían prenderle fuego al mundo antes que verlo evolucionar.

#libros #filosofia #politica #karlpopper

https://www.maikciveira.com/2019/09/la-sociedad-abierta-y-sus-enemigos_10.html?m=1

"La tolerancia ilimitada conduce necesariamente a la desaparición de la tolerancia. Si extendemos la tolerancia ilimitada aun a aquellos que son intolerantes; si no nos hallamos preparados para defender una sociedad tolerante contra las tropelías de los intolerantes, el resultado será la destrucción de los tolerantes y, junto como ellos, de la tolerancia."

#libros #filosofia #politica #karlpopper

https://www.maikciveira.com/2019/09/la-sociedad-abierta-y-sus-enemigos.html?m=1

Ja, @necrosis - diese m.E. sehr grundlegende und wichtige Frage nennt sich Anthropodizee: Gibt es eine Pflicht oder gar nur ein Recht auf das Hervorbringen von weiterem, menschlichem Leben?

Denn von diesem sei nur eines sicher: Es werde leiden und sterben.

Wir erkunden und diskutieren das auf meinem Blog (& darüber hinaus) seit vielen Jahren. Gerne herzliche Einladung zum Mitwirken!

@FR

#Klimakrise #Demografie #Anthropodizee #Demografie #Philosophie #Erkenntnistheorie #Popper #KarlPopper #Dennoch

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/dennoch-liberale-anthropodizee-nach-karl-popper/

Ja, @necrosis - diese m.E. sehr grundlegende und wichtige Frage nennt sich Anthropodizee: Gibt es eine Pflicht oder gar nur ein Recht auf das Hervorbringen von weiterem, menschlichem Leben?

Denn von diesem sei nur eines sicher: Es werde leiden und sterben.

Wir erkunden und diskutieren das auf meinem Blog (& darüber hinaus) seit vielen Jahren. Gerne herzliche Einladung zum Mitwirken!

@FR

#Klimakrise #Demografie #Anthropodizee #Demografie #Philosophie #Erkenntnistheorie #Popper #KarlPopper #Dennoch

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/dennoch-liberale-anthropodizee-nach-karl-popper/

Ja, @necrosis - diese m.E. sehr grundlegende und wichtige Frage nennt sich Anthropodizee: Gibt es eine Pflicht oder gar nur ein Recht auf das Hervorbringen von weiterem, menschlichem Leben?

Denn von diesem sei nur eines sicher: Es werde leiden und sterben.

Wir erkunden und diskutieren das auf meinem Blog (& darüber hinaus) seit vielen Jahren. Gerne herzliche Einladung zum Mitwirken!

@FR

#Klimakrise #Demografie #Anthropodizee #Demografie #Philosophie #Erkenntnistheorie #Popper #KarlPopper #Dennoch

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/dennoch-liberale-anthropodizee-nach-karl-popper/

Ja, @necrosis - diese m.E. sehr grundlegende und wichtige Frage nennt sich Anthropodizee: Gibt es eine Pflicht oder gar nur ein Recht auf das Hervorbringen von weiterem, menschlichem Leben?

Denn von diesem sei nur eines sicher: Es werde leiden und sterben.

Wir erkunden und diskutieren das auf meinem Blog (& darüber hinaus) seit vielen Jahren. Gerne herzliche Einladung zum Mitwirken!

@FR

#Klimakrise #Demografie #Anthropodizee #Demografie #Philosophie #Erkenntnistheorie #Popper #KarlPopper #Dennoch

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/dennoch-liberale-anthropodizee-nach-karl-popper/

Lo he aprendido de #JavierCavanilles en "#Satanismo, historia del culto al mal", en una cita de #karlpopper :
Las #teoriasdelaconspiracion no son más que la laicización de las supersticiones religiosas.

Lo he aprendido de #JavierCavanilles en "#Satanismo, historia del culto al mal", en una cita de #karlpopper :
Las #teoriasdelaconspiracion no son más que la laicización de las supersticiones religiosas.

El límite de la certeza y la falsabilidad como motor del conocimiento científico

Un análisis documental sobre cómo la capacidad de demostrar que una teoría es falsa se convirtió en el único camino para avanzar hacia la verdad

El entendimiento común de la sociedad suele ver a la ciencia como una acumulación interminable de verdades absolutas, un catálogo de leyes fijas grabadas en piedra que nadie puede contradecir ni poner en duda. Para el ciudadano de a pie, un conocimiento es científico únicamente cuando se ha demostrado que es cien por ciento verdadero a través de experimentos repetidos en un laboratorio. Sin embargo, esta visión es un error de perspectiva que confunde la propaganda de divulgación con el verdadero método de investigación. La realidad del pensamiento científico es mucho más humilde y, al mismo tiempo, mucho más poderosa, pues su avance no se basa en acumular pruebas para confirmar lo que ya creemos saber, sino en buscar de forma activa los errores y las fallas en nuestras propias teorías para destruirlas y construir explicaciones más completas sobre el universo.

Esta revolución en la filosofía del conocimiento cobró fuerza en el siglo XX gracias al trabajo del pensador austríaco Karl Popper, quien publicó su obra fundamental titulada La lógica de la investigación científica en el año 1934. Popper se dio cuenta de un problema lógico muy básico pero destructivo en el método inductivo tradicional, el cual afirmaba que observar muchos casos iguales servía para crear una ley universal. El filósofo utilizó el famoso ejemplo de los cisnes para explicar la falla: por más que un explorador camine por Europa y observe miles de cisnes blancos, esa acumulación de datos no le da el derecho lógico de asegurar que todos los cisnes del mundo son blancos, pues basta con que aparezca un solo cisne negro en Australia para derrumbar por completo toda su teoría. De esta manera, el autor demostró que es matemáticamente imposible verificar una ley universal con observaciones particulares, pero es sumamente fácil e inmediato refutarla con una sola prueba en contra.

A partir de este descubrimiento, el pensador propuso el concepto de la falsabilidad como la herramienta definitiva para separar la ciencia real de la pseudociencia y los dogmas ideológicos. La regla es directa: para que una teoría reciba el título de científica, sus creadores deben ser capaces de responder de antemano qué hecho o qué experimento, en caso de ocurrir, demostraría que su hipótesis es totalmente falsa. Si un discurso está diseñado de tal forma que no importa lo que pase en el mundo físico, siempre encuentra una excusa para justificar que tiene la razón, entonces no es ciencia, sino un dogma cerrado. Teorías como la relatividad general de Albert Einstein pasaron esta prueba de forma limpia en el año 1919, cuando el científico inglés Arthur Eddington aprovechó un eclipse solar para medir si la gravedad del Sol desviaba la luz de las estrellas tal como dictaban las ecuaciones; si la luz no se hubiera curvado en la cantidad exacta calculada, la teoría de Einstein habría quedado descartada para siempre en ese mismo instante.

Aceptar la falsabilidad modifica por completo nuestra relación con el conocimiento y nos obliga a mantener una sospecha constante frente a cualquier líder o grupo que pretenda vender verdades definitivas. Las teorías que sobreviven a los intentos de destrucción no se consideran verdades absolutas, sino explicaciones provisionales que han demostrado ser resistentes al paso del tiempo y a las pruebas más duras del laboratorio. El valor de la ciencia no radica en su capacidad para darnos certezas cómodas que nos calmen el miedo a lo desconocido, sino en su total disposición a cambiar de opinión cuando las evidencias materiales demuestran que estábamos equivocados. Mantener esta postura de duda permanente y rechazo al dogma es la única herramienta real que posee el individuo para defender su libertad de pensamiento frente a las corrientes ideológicas que buscan controlar el mundo mediante falsas promesas de salvación.

— A. Eldritch, Periodista, Locutor, podcaster y bloger del fediverso

Alt text via @altbot y @TeLoDescribot

#Ciencia #Filosofía #KarlPopper #Historia #PensamientoCrítico #Falsabilidad #Epistemología #Sociedad

Lieben Dank, @HGU - und das ist in einem ganz nicht-trivialen Sinne WAHR !

Als der große Humanist und Erkenntnistheoretiker Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) auf der Flucht vor den Nationalsozialisten in Christchurch, Neuseeland ein Sprachbild suchte, um den Schmerz der Falsifikation, der kognitiven Dissonanz im Angesicht von Wahrheit, zu beschreiben, da wählte er - das Tragen des Kreuzes !

Ich habe mich immer wieder gefragt, warum diese so starke Wahl in Literatur und Psychologie, Philosophie und Theologie bislang so wenig Beachtung gefunden hat!

@plinubius @angeldruckt

#Popper #Falsifikation #kognitiveDissonanz #Kreuz #Kreuztragen #KarlPopper #Humanismus #Neuseeland #Erkenntnistheorie #Österreich #Deutschland #Geschichte #Antisemitismus

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/das-schrumpfen-der-freiheit-poppers-kreuz-der-wahrheit-im-hossa-talk-184/

Lieben Dank, @HGU - und das ist in einem ganz nicht-trivialen Sinne WAHR !

Als der große Humanist und Erkenntnistheoretiker Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) auf der Flucht vor den Nationalsozialisten in Christchurch, Neuseeland ein Sprachbild suchte, um den Schmerz der Falsifikation, der kognitiven Dissonanz im Angesicht von Wahrheit, zu beschreiben, da wählte er - das Tragen des Kreuzes !

Ich habe mich immer wieder gefragt, warum diese so starke Wahl in Literatur und Psychologie, Philosophie und Theologie bislang so wenig Beachtung gefunden hat!

@plinubius @angeldruckt

#Popper #Falsifikation #kognitiveDissonanz #Kreuz #Kreuztragen #KarlPopper #Humanismus #Neuseeland #Erkenntnistheorie #Österreich #Deutschland #Geschichte #Antisemitismus

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/das-schrumpfen-der-freiheit-poppers-kreuz-der-wahrheit-im-hossa-talk-184/

Lieben Dank, @HGU - und das ist in einem ganz nicht-trivialen Sinne WAHR !

Als der große Humanist und Erkenntnistheoretiker Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) auf der Flucht vor den Nationalsozialisten in Christchurch, Neuseeland ein Sprachbild suchte, um den Schmerz der Falsifikation, der kognitiven Dissonanz im Angesicht von Wahrheit, zu beschreiben, da wählte er - das Tragen des Kreuzes !

Ich habe mich immer wieder gefragt, warum diese so starke Wahl in Literatur und Psychologie, Philosophie und Theologie bislang so wenig Beachtung gefunden hat!

@plinubius @angeldruckt

#Popper #Falsifikation #kognitiveDissonanz #Kreuz #Kreuztragen #KarlPopper #Humanismus #Neuseeland #Erkenntnistheorie #Österreich #Deutschland #Geschichte #Antisemitismus

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/das-schrumpfen-der-freiheit-poppers-kreuz-der-wahrheit-im-hossa-talk-184/

Lieben Dank, @HGU - und das ist in einem ganz nicht-trivialen Sinne WAHR !

Als der große Humanist und Erkenntnistheoretiker Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) auf der Flucht vor den Nationalsozialisten in Christchurch, Neuseeland ein Sprachbild suchte, um den Schmerz der Falsifikation, der kognitiven Dissonanz im Angesicht von Wahrheit, zu beschreiben, da wählte er - das Tragen des Kreuzes !

Ich habe mich immer wieder gefragt, warum diese so starke Wahl in Literatur und Psychologie, Philosophie und Theologie bislang so wenig Beachtung gefunden hat!

@plinubius @angeldruckt

#Popper #Falsifikation #kognitiveDissonanz #Kreuz #Kreuztragen #KarlPopper #Humanismus #Neuseeland #Erkenntnistheorie #Österreich #Deutschland #Geschichte #Antisemitismus

https://scilogs.spektrum.de/natur-des-glaubens/das-schrumpfen-der-freiheit-poppers-kreuz-der-wahrheit-im-hossa-talk-184/

Good
Ask Karl Popper about 'debating Fascists'

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/16/brit-remigration-activist-wants-carry-charlie-kirks-legacy-attacked-manchester-28801454/

#Fascism #AntiFascism #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfIntolerance #CharlieKirk #GregoryMoffitt

Good
Ask Karl Popper about 'debating Fascists'

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/16/brit-remigration-activist-wants-carry-charlie-kirks-legacy-attacked-manchester-28801454/

#Fascism #AntiFascism #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfIntolerance #CharlieKirk #GregoryMoffitt

Good
Ask Karl Popper about 'debating Fascists'

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/16/brit-remigration-activist-wants-carry-charlie-kirks-legacy-attacked-manchester-28801454/

#Fascism #AntiFascism #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfIntolerance #CharlieKirk #GregoryMoffitt

Good
Ask Karl Popper about 'debating Fascists'

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/16/brit-remigration-activist-wants-carry-charlie-kirks-legacy-attacked-manchester-28801454/

#Fascism #AntiFascism #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfIntolerance #CharlieKirk #GregoryMoffitt

Good
Ask Karl Popper about 'debating Fascists'

https://metro.co.uk/2026/06/16/brit-remigration-activist-wants-carry-charlie-kirks-legacy-attacked-manchester-28801454/

#Fascism #AntiFascism #KarlPopper #ParadoxOfIntolerance #CharlieKirk #GregoryMoffitt

#zitate #sprueche #philosophie #selbstkritik #karlpopper #popper

#zitate #sprueche #philosophie #selbstkritik #karlpopper #popper

“We do not stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing”*…

… and so we shouldn’t. Ryan Weber (a professor of technical writing who, happily for us, moonlights) is here to help…

More at “‘Descartes Against Humanity’ and Other Games Designed by Famous Philosophers,” from @mcsweeneys.net.

Unrelated, but important: “Help save Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine by signing this petition.”

* George Bernard Shaw (though often mis-attributed to Benjamin Franklin)

###

As we play, we might spare a thought for a philosopher whose game would likely be “The Game of Life,” Bernard Williams; he died on this date in 2003. As Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and Deutsch Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Williams became known for his efforts to reorient the study of moral philosophy to psychology, history, and in particular to the Greeks. 

His publications include Problems of the Self (1973), Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985), Shame and Necessity (1993), and Truth and Truthfulness (2002).  Gilbert Ryle, one of Williams’s mentors at Oxford University, said that Williams “understands what you’re going to say better than you understand it yourself, and sees all the possible objections to it, and all the possible answers to all the possible objections, before you’ve got to the end of your own sentence.”

Described by Colin McGinn as an “analytical philosopher with the soul of a general humanist,” he was sceptical about attempts to create a foundation for moral philosophy. Martha Nussbaum wrote that he demanded of philosophy that it “come to terms with, and contain, the difficulty and complexity of human life.”

source

“We do not stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing”*…

… and so we shouldn’t. Ryan Weber (a professor of technical writing who, happily for us, moonlights) is here to help…

More at “‘Descartes Against Humanity’ and Other Games Designed by Famous Philosophers,” from @mcsweeneys.net.

Unrelated, but important: “Help save Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine by signing this petition.”

* George Bernard Shaw (though often mis-attributed to Benjamin Franklin)

###

As we play, we might spare a thought for a philosopher whose game would likely be “The Game of Life,” Bernard Williams; he died on this date in 2003. As Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge and Deutsch Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, Williams became known for his efforts to reorient the study of moral philosophy to psychology, history, and in particular to the Greeks. 

His publications include Problems of the Self (1973), Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (1985), Shame and Necessity (1993), and Truth and Truthfulness (2002).  Gilbert Ryle, one of Williams’s mentors at Oxford University, said that Williams “understands what you’re going to say better than you understand it yourself, and sees all the possible objections to it, and all the possible answers to all the possible objections, before you’ve got to the end of your own sentence.”

Described by Colin McGinn as an “analytical philosopher with the soul of a general humanist,” he was sceptical about attempts to create a foundation for moral philosophy. Martha Nussbaum wrote that he demanded of philosophy that it “come to terms with, and contain, the difficulty and complexity of human life.”

source