Latest news with #KarlPopper
BBC News
27-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
Books donated to Oxford charity shop fetch £13,000 at auction
A rare collection of books by the renowned philosopher Sir Karl Popper has fetched £13,000 for Oxfam, after being donated to one of the charity's 12-book collection, which included several volumes inscribed by Sir Karl, were donated to Oxfam's Headington shop, in Curtis, the charity volunteer who spotted the collection, said she was "absolutely delighted" by the result of the sale, which "exceeded our expectations".A British philosopher of Austrian birth, Sir Karl Popper was famous for questioning traditional scientific ideas - arguing that absolute truth was alien to the scientific method. The collection of books donated to Oxfam included some of his most famous works - including The Logic of Scientific Discovery and The Open Society and Its Enemies. Ms Curtis said the books had been donated "a while ago", and that she had "immediately recognised that they had value"."It was difficult to assess their worth because of the nature of the inscriptions and the two philosophers associated with them," she collection was sold by Bonhams, with Ms Curtis saying Oxfam was "encouraged" by the auction house's "enthusiasm when we approached them". Ian Falkingham, Oxfam's donated goods strategy lead, said: "We're delighted with the success of the sale and incredibly thankful to everyone who supports Oxfam by donating books.""This generous contribution turned out to be something quite special, and it's a real privilege to see it achieve such a fantastic result," he Karl, who died in 1994, was known for his belief that human knowledge progresses through 'falsification' - the idea that a theory shouldn't be described as scientific unless it could, in principle, be proven false. You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Spectator
08-06-2025
- General
- Spectator
Respect thine elders
Before the arrival of strawberries, and not long after the coming of the swifts, the elder salutes the coming of summer after its own fashion: emerging from roadsides and hedgerows, gardens and wasteland, and scenting them with its blooms. Almost a century ago, Maud Grieve, in her 1931 Modern Herbal, said 'that our English summer is not here until the elder is fully in flower, and that it ends when the berries are ripe'. At this time, when thorn blossom – which made our hedgerows look set for a wedding – has faded, the elder, like cow parsley, offers its own floral exuberance. Thrips, the insects which pollinate elders, are not themselves beautiful creatures, but seeing the blossoms of the elder, and smelling its fragrance, we experience something of the thrip's idea of worldly beauty. Karl Popper, the philosopher of science, pointed out that we should not dismiss such styles of thought as anthropomorphism. They are – but they are also a form of argument by analogy. Other animals have appendages that we call legs because they are analogous to our legs; so too they have emotions and behaviours and desires and interests, and an apparent sense of what is beautiful and what is not, and therefore it is not silly, when we think of these things, to use the words we use for our own lives. Most years there are articles about the elder when its flowers come into bloom. This allows us to notice that there is nothing about our appreciation of the world that need be original – indeed, that appreciation is more important than originality. The creamy white colour of the elderflower is neither as overlooked nor as remarkable as the golden-coloured eyes of the common toad, which Orwell described as being like a semi-precious stone called a chrysoberyl. Nor is its scent unusual – sweet, intoxicating, a little overpowering, like New Zealand sauvignon blanc with its notorious note of cat's urine. Nevertheless, the value of experience is not in it being unusual. Quite the opposite. Our joy in it being the start of summer, a sense that it will not be long before the flowers fade and the berries signal autumn, comes to us yearly. The elder has its seasons – and so do we. The elder has a long-standing, and not always pleasant, place in our cultural history. Shakespeare mentioned the myth of Judas hanging himself on an elder tree. The mushrooms that grow on its bark were called Jew's ears, and although they are now called wood ear or jelly ear, the Linnean name, Auricularia auricula-judae, retains the old meaning. Pleasant that anti-Semitism has faded and there seems no need to erase its footprints when our modern usage has improved. Repainting words to make our history prettier is not generally helpful. The mushrooms are edible, with a striking gelatinous texture, and a related species is much prized in China for that same quality. Elder, whose genus name is Sambucus, gave its name to the liqueur Sambuca, although the version drunk today – which can contain elderflower but relies for its flavour on anise – has little in common with the elderberry liqueur which first gave rise to the name. That the flowers are edible is common knowledge, and elderflower cordial remains a popular drink. Elderflower champagne and elderflower fritters are easy enough to prepare. Few recipes mention that, to enjoy what thrips so love, you must be willing occasionally to enjoy a few thrips too. Removing most of them is easy; getting rid of them all is not. In his famous article on the common toad, Orwell defended the habit of noticing the beauty of nature, even for those who felt life should otherwise be political. 'Certainly we ought to be discontented, we ought not simply to find out ways of making the best of a bad job, and yet if we kill all pleasure in the actual process of life, what sort of future are we preparing for ourselves?' I have noticed that articles in The Spectator which are not about politics are often attacked, in the online comments, as being fillers. My own suspicion is that the reverse is probably closer to the truth, and that when we look back on our lives we will find we have forgotten most of the current affairs that once seemed urgent – but not the waft of scented elderflower on lengthening evenings now May has slipped into June.
Express Tribune
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Stupidistan
Listen to article This piece seeks to expose a key contradiction between form and substance — between aspiration, machinations, desperation, incompetence, and incoherence — evident among our eastern neighbours, and is not polemical. Recent events have thrown these elements and contradictions into sharp relief, necessitating a deep dive into their mindset and increasingly radicalised diaspora. We also see how a sense of entitlement has created cognitive dissonance, where the causal link between actions and consequences is denied or ignored, feeding into a sense of ambush and victimhood. First, let me spell out a few caveats. I do not relish any nation's humiliation or misery, even if self-inflicted. My choice of title reflects my frustration with the pack of contradictions today's India has become, rather than being motivated by calumny. Two, you do not need to remind me of my nationality. Today, we talk about India, yet I can be just as critical of my own homeland. Third, the proof of the pudding is in my theoretical framework. As an ardent follower of Karl Popper, I can say that what dismays me in India is elemental, not prejudicial. Every culture can have utopian visions and theories about historical destiny. Those specific patterns worry me universally because they justify present suffering for supposed future benefits — often resulting in cruelty. Let's begin. India today calls itself a civilisational state. This is pure gibberish outside Toynbee or Huntington's political spin on such terms. Look at the term's etymological journey: Civitas (Latin): city-state, citizenship; Civilitas (Latin): civility, refinement, courtesy; Civiliser (French): to civilise, to refine; Civilisation (French, 18th century): the process of becoming civilised. Huntington's assertion that religion may have something to do with it is just an opportunistic projection. This Indian assertion was defined more succinctly by MS Golwalkar as "race pride". But here is the catch: race as a common denominator cannot exclude Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, local Muslims, or Christians. Here, Huntington provides a useful device by othering them culturally. I have written a lot about Huntington. It is tragic to see the devastating power of suggestion — where, by picking the right moment and concealing prejudice in academic garb, a clever opportunist can cause far-reaching damage. One is surprised to see how many depressed identities accepted Huntington's caricature of them at face value, took it as a licence to misbehave, and ran with it. On January 1, 2020, Netflix launched a series called Messiah. Much of the series is filmed in Israel, showing the Jewish state's affinity for the project. In one scene, the protagonist, a CIA official, finds a young barista reading Huntington's book and tells him, "The only thing you need to remember is that he was right." No beating about the bush. In India's case, you must appreciate the sociology of this mindset: over a millennium of being ruled by foreigners in your own land. Then, today's lot learned to live in a world where hate and prejudice were the unquestioned operating system for two decades following 9/11. So, Francis Fukuyama's isothymia (the desire to be recognised as equal to others) became megalothymia (a strong, often excessive, desire to be recognised as superior or better than others). But even before 9/11, significant changes had begun. In 1989, Kashmir erupted, formalising the image of the enemy: Muslims supported by Pakistan, in turn supported by China. Then came the demolition of the Babri Mosque. A recent American Hindu convert was getting primed for an interesting twist at that time. When Huntington gave his lecture and published his essay, David Frawley ran with it. He had converted to Hinduism in 1991 and called himself Pandit Vamadeva Shastri. Within a few short years, he was churning out books priming Indian and Hindu minds for the post-9/11 cruelty. Consider the titles: Arise Arjuna: Hinduism and the Modern World (1995), Awaken Bharata: A Call for India's Rebirth (1998), and my favourite, Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations (2001, erm). He was awarded the Padma Bhushan in 2015 by the Modi government. So when 9/11 happened, India was ready to be part of the Islamophobic grand architecture. While Pakistan and many others went through hell to prove they were not the West's enemy, India gained privileges — through blackmail on matters like the 2002 parliament attack, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, and the Mumbai attack — while Pakistan was framed as the evil one himself. India grew rapidly. The Indian diaspora, already known for its competence, benefited from tailwinds. While the earlier waves of Indian immigrants had to integrate fully, the new wave had no such compulsion. They brought their third-world view with them, became Modi bhakts after the 2002 Gujarat pogrom, and worked very hard to help him become PM. He could not have ruled a country as diverse as India without being a rockstar in their eyes. They wanted blood sports. He gave them that. Until now, of course — when that bubble has collapsed. Now, even if he resumes the war, he has no redemption. They will move on to the next strongman — or a brief secular interregnum. The recent war is quite similar to Kargil. When a Pakistani premier, whose approval had skyrocketed due to nuclear tests, announced that the country was withdrawing from Kargil, his popularity fell immediately, and his government within three months. India's toxic mix is far more potent. If Modi survives this, he will truly be a miracle worker. Even so, India's friends-and-family network remains strong. Justin Trudeau, who offended India, is gone. So is Joe Biden and his running mate. From the shadows, this lot manufactures crises and consent. At the peak of the Trump tariff wars, the US president had to step back when treasuries faced turbulence. Before suspending tariffs on most countries, his first act was to hand over Tahawwur Rana to India and increase tariffs on China — which pleased New Delhi. After the recent South Asian war, his announcement of a ceasefire did not go down well with the lot. The bond market is again facing shocks, and a mini-coup has erupted within the billionaire flank of Trumpworld. Elon Musk had quit, citing disagreements regarding One Big Beautiful Bill. His earlier defence of H1B visa beneficiaries — particularly Indians — was already a dead giveaway. This speaks to the power this lot has. When he moved to downsize the CIA, a concern was voiced that he was channelling forces with scores to settle with the Five Eyes intelligence community. If you find pieces in publications like The Atlantic arguing that Trump's proposed Golden Dome missile shield — meant solely for North America — should also cover Quad countries (a notion kept alive by Indian enthusiasm), know that this lot is at work. Mind you, this gratuitous use of power for such small wins — and this take-no-prisoners approach — does not go unnoticed. But sadly, it is the weak and vulnerable among the diaspora who pay the price of this extravagance.
BBC News
27-03-2025
- General
- BBC News
The simple trick to change other people's minds
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques. "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way. As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues. Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion. Be curious One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to readers in July and August of last year. In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions. This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails. Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas. Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group. While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs. It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance. We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions. After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed. Get personal While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument. This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience. We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five. Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand. Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views. There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two. By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence. More like this: • Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think • Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people? • Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics. While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views. Listen and learn Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures. Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything". By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process. * David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. -- If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. For more science, technology, environment and health stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
BBC News
26-03-2025
- General
- BBC News
The mind-changing method measured in minutes
People will be far more open-minded than you realise if you adopt these simple conversational techniques. "The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement," claimed the philosopher Karl Popper. He was writing about the dangers of dogma in science – but his words could equally apply to anyone's worldview. And if you want a disagreement to end by changing someone's mind, you have to do it in the right way. As I found in my recent book on social connection, new psychological research can help us to have more constructive conversations about controversial issues. Some of the strategies surprised me. While some social media users are keen to remind us that "facts don't care about your feelings", studies suggest that people are considerably more likely to listen to our arguments if we talk about our personal experiences of the issues under discussion. Be curious One of the main drivers of serious disagreement was apparent in the recent Friendship Study, which comprised a questionnaire I devised with psychologist Ian MacRae, offered to readers in July and August of last year. In one section, participants were asked to imagine a discussion with someone who disagreed with them about certain political or social issues. Afterwards, each participant was asked about their intentions – whether they aimed to persuade the other person, learn from them, or argue with them – and also their impression of the other person's intentions. Overall, the 1,912 participants overestimated how much other people wanted to persuade them of their point of view, and how much they were looking for an argument. At the same time, they underestimated how much the other person wanted to learn and understand the different opinions. This is worth remembering whenever we find ourselves in a conflict: the other person may be more open to a good-faith discussion than we think, and we should treat them with the respect that entails. Given that our conversation partner might underestimate our curiosity about their views, we should also make more effort to express our interest in their views. By demonstrating our good intentions to learn and understand, we will encourage them to lower their defences so that they are more open to an honest exchange of ideas. Often it is as simple as asking the right question. In the late 2000s, Frances Chen and colleagues at Stanford University invited students to engage in an online debate about whether the university should introduce a new set of exams. Unsurprisingly, many students were dead set against the idea. Crucially, they thought they were chatting to their peers, but their debating partners were really the experimenters themselves – who followed very rigid scripts that varied depending on whether the participant was in the experimental group or the control group. In half of the conversations, the experimenters asked the students to elaborate on their views. For example, they might listen to a student's argument and respond: "I was interested in what you're saying. Can you tell me more about how come you think that?" For the other trials, the conversation did not include any request for more information on the participants' beliefs. It was a tiny change in the script, but the addition of the single question changed the whole tone of the debate by provoking a considerably more open-minded response from the participants. They were more willing to continue the conversation and to receive further information on the other person's arguments, for instance. We might be a little sceptical of the results from a single experiment, but Guy Itzchakov at the University of Haifa in Israel and his colleagues came to very similar conclusions in a series of studies involving hundreds of participants. Actively asking questions about people's beliefs and the reasons they hold those views leads them to lower their defences, so that they are considerably more receptive to alternative opinions. After these kinds of conversations, participants were considerably more likely to agree with statements such as "I feel that I ought to re-evaluate the event now, after the conversation" – suggesting that they had become more thoughtful about the issues that they had discussed. Get personal While exchanging opinions, you shouldn't be afraid of sharing your first-hand experience of the issue at hand; indeed, it may just strengthen your argument. This fact does not seem to be widely recognised. When Emily Kubin at the University of North Carolina and colleagues asked 251 participants to describe the best ways to present their opinion on an issue such as same-sex marriage or abortion, 56% chose the presentation of facts and evidence, while just 21% selected the expression of personal experience. We saw similar patterns within our Friendship Study. When we asked people to rate seven persuasion strategies, "civility" was number one, followed by "logic and reason". "Personal experience" came in at number five. Kubin's experiments, however, suggest that it can be a potent tool of persuasion. Her team asked 177 participants to read about three people's opinions on topics like taxation, coal mining or gun control, before rating their respect for each person, and that person's rationality. No matter what their initial stance, the participants gave considerably higher ratings if they knew that the person had personal experience of the issue at hand. Reading short texts online may seem a far cry from real-life encounters, but Kubin has also tested the principle in face-to-face dialogues on gun control, using a further sample of 153 local people who lived near the university. Once again, someone using a personal experience to portray their views commanded more respect from their conversation partner and was perceived to be more rational in their views. There are, of course, good reasons to be wary of purely subjective accounts if they are not accompanied by any statistics, and an overreliance on an emotional appeal could raise the other person's suspicions. But the two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive, and your point of view may be better received if you combine the two. Consider a recent examination of the 2018 midterm elections demonstrated. The study measured the progress of 230 canvassers, conversing on a range of political issues with 6,869 voters across seven US locations. Some were asked to make their case using purely statistical arguments – concerning, for instance, the common fear that immigration increases crime – while others were asked to exchange personal stories, in addition to presenting factual evidence. More like this:• Friendship in divided times: People don't want to argue with you as much as you think• Why do I feel so lonely even though I'm surrounded by people?• Seven ways to improve your sleep according to science Each of the voters took opinion polls before and after they met the canvassers. The researchers found that the mutually respectful exchange of experiences was more likely to shift opinion than conversations that focused more on impersonal facts and statistics. While the overall effects were small – resulting in a five-percentage-point shift in views on immigration, for example – this should be taken in context. On average, the conversations lasted just 11 minutes in total, yet a significant number of people started to change strongly held views. Listen and learn Throughout your conversations, you should make sure that you maintain a basic level of civility – not only to your discussion partner, but also when you are talking about anyone else who may be involved in the debate, including public figures. Research by Jeremy Frimer at the University of Winnipeg and Linda Skitka at the University of Illinois at Chicago has shown that rude behaviour is far more likely to alienate the person you wish to persuade than change their opinion, and it may even disaffect people who were already coming around to your point of view. They describe this as the Montagu Principle, named after the 18th-Century English aristocrat Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, who declared that "civility costs nothing and buys everything". By demonstrating genuine curiosity, sharing your personal experiences, and maintaining a civil attitude, you may be surprised by your potential to connect – and gain a wiser worldview in the process. * David Robson is an award-winning science writer and author. His latest book, The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life, was published by Canongate (UK) and Pegasus Books (USA & Canada) in June 2024. He is @davidarobson on Instagram and Threads and writes the 60-Second Psychology newsletter on Substack. --
