AFAIK PCR (pancritical rationalism) was based largely on Popper's
original work on critical rationalism. I don't think anybody has since
invented a better way of discerning potential knowledge from falsehood,
while keeping an open mind to new ideas and always reducing error. PCR
is the scaffolding upon which Extropian epistemology is based. I
woulnd't call that idiocy.
Popper's reasoning is a lot more coherent than John Horgan makes it out
to be in the shallow treatment presented in that interview. Horgan
doesn't stop after bashing Popper--through the rest of that book, a
number of other big-name scientists are shown to be bumbling idiots as
well. Horgan is a pretty sharp writer with a broad knowledge base, but
IMHO he gets way too uppity with a number of well-respected,
leading-edge thinkers. Most of the time he is *so* sure of himself, that
*his* theory (the rise of "ironic science") is right and nothin' nobody
says is gonna change his mind, no matter what.
His abusive tone and derisive remarks about some of the other
interviewees are downright childish at times. Of course, he doesn't say
anything rude to their faces, he saves it all for the narratives he
writes later to pad out the interviews. I lost a lot of respect for
Horgan while reading _The End of Science_... Making fun of the guys you
don't agree with is not a valid way to go about making your point.
John Horgan is an anti-Extropian. He'd call us all hopeless dreamers
living in a fantasy world eagerly awaiting a technological utopia that's
never going to arrive. Instead, apparently, science is just going to
"run out of steam" and innovation will somehow just gradually slow down
and then stop.
Uh-huh. Right. I guess neo-tech is the only thing that can save us
now...
Bartley Troyan
bt26@andrew.cmu.edu