popper

Hackers interested in roasting their own should probably just grab a cheap $15–20 hot air popcorn popper.

No one cares until there's a crisis, then the Karl Popper quotes never stop.

It is called a popper because of its distinct sound, caused by the non-180 degree angle between the two cylinders on the camshaft.

Trivia: a Johnny Popper is a John Deere model M.

His curt summary of Popper was almost as unsatisfying.

There are several examples of exceptions that come to mind: Karl Popper talks about not tolerating the intolerant; Political Correctness can introduce prejudice (and has spoilt some good communities).

By the time I was 8, I was driving that popper while two of my grandfather's farm hands tossed hay bales onto a flatbed trailer.

As for working scientists, many have brilliant insights into the practice of science and its epistemology, but very many working scientists will offer you a warmed over version of Karl Popper as their philosophy of science.

Karl Popper claimed that this method is actually at the core of how we gain scientific knowledge, and his brand of philosophy of science is the most popular and arguably the most successful today.

Instead, Popper said, what should be done is to look to find and correct errors.[27] Popper regarded theories that have survived criticism as better corroborated in proportion to the amount and stringency of the criticism, but, in sharp contrast to the inductivist theories of knowledge, emphatically as less likely to be true.

While I think a lot of the contemporary rationalist movement is caught up in old logical positivist modes of thought, your own willingness to invalidate models based on evidence wasn't fully developed before Kuhn and Popper brought such thinking into the mainstream.

Popper argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking justification "begs for an authoritarian answer".

Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification" essay is very useful here.

"The Beginning of Infinity", from David Deutsch, in which evolution, Popper epistemology and theory of computation blend into a world view fruitful of thrilling perspectives for humanity.

Karl Popper himself wrote: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory," This flies in the face of our intuition and is very hard for people (even some scientists) to understand.

How does this differ from Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism (or the later variants of Pan Critical Rationalism)?

Perhaps instead of spouting articles without understanding you should read a bit about falsation and Karl Popper's contributions to the philosophy of science.

Like I said, Popper's concept of critical rationalism predates Foucault and makes the argument far more straightforward and clearly.