Was Karl Popper utterly incompetent or completely dishonest for never addressing Solomonoff's 1960s solution to the problem of Induction, that Popper monkeyed being a specialist in, yet claimed was without solution until his death in the 1990s?
There is no epistemological induction. Popper's solution to the "problem of induction" is the hypothetico-deductive method. There is nothing wrong with probability theories, such as Solomonoff's, in themselves. But they rest on assumptions and so offer no epistemological support.
I beg to disagree. The magic in Solomonoff's theory, that can be seen as bayesian reasoning on whole world logical models, is that the mechanism of induction is contextual, yet asymptotically the specific initial context doesn't matter much as long as it's universal. In other words, given common observations you'll eventually agree to the same conclusions, even though your initial models may differ significantly. Well, except for the fact that the probability distribution is not computable and can be only approximated by our finite brains. Also, our observations are not common. As for the initial distribution being useful—that's where nature and nurture make us adapted to the world, or fail to.
In other words, Solomonoff fully solves the "problem" of induction, with a solution that fulfills all the requirements of normal life, but is completely off Popper's or Hume's radar in the way it handles context while they dogmatically choose not to.
Although this Substack assumes and uses critical rationalism, where relevant, it’s primary focus is on libertarianism (which is comprehensive enough to be an inexhaustible subject). The elaborations of alternative epistemologies (of which there are quite a few) and their specific implications for criticising critical rationalism are likely to be given a thorough response only on a dedicated critical rationalist website or journal.
How can Karl Popper be an authority on rationalism, when his proclaimed main rational pursuit, that of the question of induction, was clearly a sham? Nowadays, we have other intellectual scammers like Eliezer Yudkowski who boast to be at the pinnacle of rationality, yet are totally irrational on their one self-proclaimed domain of expertise, in this case AI.
Karl Popper should be dismissed as an authority, with extreme prejudice. Whatever argument he presents should be taken with a good dose of salt, and not accepted unless and until it survives close inspection.
Was Karl Popper utterly incompetent or completely dishonest for never addressing Solomonoff's 1960s solution to the problem of Induction, that Popper monkeyed being a specialist in, yet claimed was without solution until his death in the 1990s?
There is no epistemological induction. Popper's solution to the "problem of induction" is the hypothetico-deductive method. There is nothing wrong with probability theories, such as Solomonoff's, in themselves. But they rest on assumptions and so offer no epistemological support.
I beg to disagree. The magic in Solomonoff's theory, that can be seen as bayesian reasoning on whole world logical models, is that the mechanism of induction is contextual, yet asymptotically the specific initial context doesn't matter much as long as it's universal. In other words, given common observations you'll eventually agree to the same conclusions, even though your initial models may differ significantly. Well, except for the fact that the probability distribution is not computable and can be only approximated by our finite brains. Also, our observations are not common. As for the initial distribution being useful—that's where nature and nurture make us adapted to the world, or fail to.
In other words, Solomonoff fully solves the "problem" of induction, with a solution that fulfills all the requirements of normal life, but is completely off Popper's or Hume's radar in the way it handles context while they dogmatically choose not to.
Although this Substack assumes and uses critical rationalism, where relevant, it’s primary focus is on libertarianism (which is comprehensive enough to be an inexhaustible subject). The elaborations of alternative epistemologies (of which there are quite a few) and their specific implications for criticising critical rationalism are likely to be given a thorough response only on a dedicated critical rationalist website or journal.
How can Karl Popper be an authority on rationalism, when his proclaimed main rational pursuit, that of the question of induction, was clearly a sham? Nowadays, we have other intellectual scammers like Eliezer Yudkowski who boast to be at the pinnacle of rationality, yet are totally irrational on their one self-proclaimed domain of expertise, in this case AI.
Karl Popper should be dismissed as an authority, with extreme prejudice. Whatever argument he presents should be taken with a good dose of salt, and not accepted unless and until it survives close inspection.