Regarding our debate, my final concession:
Fidel you mentioned that Popper was perhaps pro-Hegel. I dunno, maybe he was, perhaps you could interpret it that way. I certainly never thought he could be read as pro-dialectic, but maybe I'm reading him wrong, too. After all, hate is so close to love. If you hate something enough to think and talk about it so much it consumes a lot of your time and thoughts, it's certainly powerful. Is that love? What is love?  (baby don't hurt me...lmao). Well, I guess that's kind of falling in love with a problem, in a way--also something Popper talks about quite a bit.

Anyway, Popper has a great book called "The Open Society and its Enemies and its Enemies," the premise of which is to critique Plato (huge influence on Hegel), Hegel (king of the dialectic) and Marx (major user of dialectic arguments). You can read about it on Wikipedia here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies.
Or read the text itself here:
https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/open-society-1.pdf. 
I refer to it a lot in our conversations, particularly in regards to politics. It's been a pretty influential read for me--there isn't much I disagree within it except some of the words he chooses to use were too in-line with the elitist philosopher lingo of the time.

Anyway, I think I've got enough to mull over here as far as my understanding of Popper, and my own understanding of reality. Let's keep it going in other threads. Cheers!

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science. Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can (and should) be scrutinised with decisive experiments.

Originally posted by Cody >  
This is a misunderstanding of Popper. He IS anti-dialetical.

I don't agree. From reading the paper you linked to a few pages back, he is definitely not anti-dialectical.

Originally posted by Cody >   
But the 'third option' (a concept that's integral to his explanation of science and knowledge) ...

His paper was not an explanation of science and knowledge. It was an argument for refining methods by which to better and more rigorously test hypotheses, and that such methods would lead to superior conclusions(a.k.a. scientific knowledge).

...presented here is a strawmanning argument. There's an infinite amount of better 3rd options:
1. It may be Monday in Japan, but it's not in the US, yet.
2. There's no Monday on Mars.
3. Eventually there will be no Monday, or Monday will have to change it's meaning because of the Earth's relationship to Sol.
4...infinite possibilities.

Because Popper did not go down this road, I will take an off-ramp here too. LOL. But I will close in saying that these might fall under the analytic and synthetic Kantian contrasts. Word play at best. Gaslighting at worst. And Popper would throw this set of statements, if submitted by his student, right in the pooper.

Looking forward to gaming!!!

Originally posted by Cody > 
One way to see theories: Theories are tools we use to understand/describe/communicate about reality, and do stuff in it.

Are you talking about the colloquial theory? Or the scientific theory that has already gone through the rigorous falsification process? Be specific because they are not the same.

Originally posted by Cody > 
The theories themselves are not reality. They are a part of it, though.

This is unnecessary, seems these statements' only purpose is to gaslight. Of course theory  ≠  reality. A theory explains a part of reality that is observed. This sentence seems to address a nebulous claim ("theory = reality"??) that has never been made that I am aware of.

Originally posted by Cody >
 If science is a strong part of ones identity because of ones upbringing it, for example, they may be scared to criticize it's foundations.

I've never met anyone who was scared to criticize the foundations of science. Science has no dogma. Science is simply the best process ever proposed for use in gathering understanding of reality and our world.

Originally posted by Cody > 
Doing so may mean losing that part of their identity.

This is an unsubstantiated claim. I would ask you to give me an example of a study published on this, but that might be a whole other topic. Besides, one's identity could thrive due to the fulfillment they find in science.

This can lead to Scientism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism , which can be linked with Statist positions.  I see some comparisons with arguments I've had with others where things meant to AVOID dogma--like the US constitution--end up becoming a dogma themselves. This is a huge problem with my generation, millennials, as well.

" This can lead to Scientism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism , which can be linked with Statist positions.  "

...has no relation to...

" I see some comparisons with arguments I've had with others where things meant to AVOID dogma--like the US constitution--end up becoming a dogma themselves. "

You're all over the place, man! LOL.

Originally posted by Cody >
 Very happy to have someone interacting with every line of mine they disagree with, that's great!

My pleasure! I enjoy discussions on all kinds of topics. I am one of those rare people who invite the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea and a chat!! LOL.

First you said our senses are theories. Then you say our senses are tools. Can you see how I am getting confused?

One way to see theories: Theories are tools we use to understand/describe/communicate about reality, and do stuff in it. The theories themselves are not reality. They are a part of it, though.

If science is a strong part of ones identity because of ones upbringing it, for example, they may be scared to criticize it's foundations. Doing so may mean losing that part of their identity. This can lead to Scientism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism , which can be linked with Statist positions. I see some comparisons with arguments I've had with others where things meant to AVOID dogma--like the US constitution--end up becoming a dogma themselves. This is a huge problem with my generation, millennials, as well.

In order for science to survive, though, it's foundations have to be criticized. That means . Of course, it's not enough to just criticize something, there has to be something worth moving toward. Negatively framing interpretation, creating a dialectical tension between "colloquial" and "scientific," is a complete empiricist misunderstanding of Popper. Of course there are different levels of applicability to theories. A theory about how to make the best pizza has less universality than an explanation about quantum gravity, you can do much more with the latter than the former. BUT, his whole position is that interpretation (perhaps the "nebulousness" you so casually negatively refer to) is where creativity and progress, especially in science, comes from. "The explanation of the known by the unknown," in Poppers own words. He himself also remarked negatively on having to use the intellectualized philosophical lingo of the time, to be taken seriously by his peers (which is STILL wasn't until many years later). So he almost sarcastically (in my opinion) uses hilarious words like "explicans" and "explicandum".

Some of the arguments I've seen in this thread remind me of this post on Reddit.

Popper accepts a principle called "the principle of explosion," the view that "from a contradictory premise, everything follows." According to this principle, the following argument is valid:

1. Today is Monday.

2. Today is not Monday.

3. Unicorns exist.

This is a misunderstanding of Popper. He IS anti-dialetical. But the 'third option' (a concept that's integral to his explanation of science and knowledge) presented here is a strawmanning argument. There's an infinite amount of better 3rd options:
1. It may be Monday in Japan, but it's not in the US, yet.
2. There's no Monday on Mars.
3. Eventually there will be no Monday, or Monday will have to change it's meaning because of the Earth's relationship to Sol.
4...infinite possibilities.

Which reminds me of another thing we had a conversation about: infinity. I think I remember the idea that "infinity is just something mathematicians use for...," can you clarify your position on "infinity," or what it means to you?

ANYWAY! Looking forward to board games!!

My head is spinning. LOL.

Originally posted by Cody > 
But they are imperfect tools.

First you said our senses are theories. Then you say our senses are tools. Can you see how I am getting confused?

Originally posted by Cody >
 Another way to put this is that _observations rely on theorie_s.

On the contrary. scientific theories rely on observations...without supporting observations, it remains a hypothesis at best...a wild guess at worst.

Originally posted by Cody > 
 There's no way to observe something that is free of criticism

This makes no sense and holds no utility. Physicists observe particles doing X, Y or Z in the LHC. Do they then say shit like "That's particle is an asshole, man!"?

Originally posted by Cody > 
 Our senses, for example, are the theories we are born with.

Unless put through the rigorous process of testing and falsification, our senses cannot be theories. Theories are sets of statements. Senses are a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus. There is no way such faculties can be granted "theory-hood".

How does an explanation (theory) get from one person to another?

How does a new explanation (theory) get into the first person?

How does an explanation (theory) improve?

These questions tell me you're talking about the colloquial use, and social application of "explanation" and "theory". Yet Popper, in his paper, is using those words as they are applied in the scientific method and used within the scientific community at large.

So I am again confused as to whether or not you want to adhere to Popper's usage of these terms, or shall we put Popper's paper aside and move on to the colloquial use, and social applications?

Your subsequent post is unapproachable to me(nebulous!! LOL) until we sort this out, because I've read the Popper paper thoroughly and these 3 questions make no sense to me.

I'm going to try and rewrite those arguments for clarity. Looking forward to your misinterpretations ;). AND I take responsibility for my mistakes, through misleading and interpetation, in advance

(This is a very Popperian idea [sorry not sorry, dangerously paraphrasing, again, lol]:
there's no way to communicate that prevents misleading or being misunderstood)

Rods & Cones are theories about photons created by evolution to solve short-term problems for life. Source: https://www.cis.rit.edu/people/faculty/montag/vandplite/pages/chap_9/ch9p1.html

Another way to put this is that _observations rely on theorie_s. There's no way to observe something that is free of criticism. There's no perfect observation. Our senses, for example, are the theories we are born with, provided to us by evolution, that allow us to interpret reality. But they are imperfect tools. We built better tools to replace and augment them, but those tools are also imperfect. We criticize and improve them, that's fallibalism.

But, how do we decide which theories are even worth criticizing? If I said that you needed to eat a pound of grass to cure the common cold, do you need to eat a pound of grass to find out?

This is where Deutsch's contribution builds on Poppers (in my own words): What we're after in science is good explanations (theories) that are resistant to change even when the test itself changes ("hard-to-vary"), AND every part of the explanation serves a purpose. The purpose being that the explanation counts for something if it solves some problem. This also gives context for why observation is still important and what purpose it plays in reality. Observation is where solutions are confirmed, but more importantly for science, observation is where new problems come to light.

Newton's "law of universal gravitation," that gravity is a force and "every particle attracts every other particle in the universe," was wrong. It was right at the time, it was our best theory. We solved a lot of problems with it, made built some amazing stuff. But as more problems arose, it became clear it was wrong. How can something be both right and wrong?

It was right given the tests it passed. But, the tests that it passed were insufficient, the observations being made didn't capture enough information. All the evidence that said it was true, was insufficient. Reality stepped in and provided the problems that debunked the explanation. Eventually, Einstein came up with his theory of gravity, that gravity is "a curvature of time and space caused by mass and energy." That also solved lots of problems, it was right, and was out best theory. We built all kinds of stuff that relies on that theory. My favorite to mention is GPS, it wouldn't work without Einstein's equations. However, Einstein's theory is also wrong. It doesn't explain gravity's place at the quantum (multiverse) level and how it may affect quantum computing. Scientists are conjecturing new theories (not based on prior observation) about what the best new theory could be.

But they will never be enough, and I think we may have answers for why in Deutsch's improvements on Everett's many-worlds theory in relations to observations in quantum computing. I could be wrong about the multiverse, but the difference is I'm interested in observing things that haven't been observed before. In a lot of ways our layman conversations are similar to Bohr and Einstein's debates, we're arguing about the best way to observe things that haven't been observed before.

Scientific explanations are called "theories" and do not involve interpretation.

How does an explanation (theory) get from one person to another?

How does a new explanation (theory) get into the first person?

How does an explanation (theory) improve?

is not any more scientific phrasing than "H20 becomes solid..."

How do we observe H20?

Originally posted by Cody >
 I think Josh is right we're kind of talking past each other. Maybe we should move to the new question based, Socratic method, style thread format? I would be cool with that.

I don't think that's the case. On the contrary. Thus far it's just about not letting either of us talk any further ahead until any and all confusion has been sorted out. One example is that I was confused by "Explanatory knowledge is the nemesis of hierarchy." It made no sense, so I couldn't go any further until I tracked down the source and found "Explanatory knowledge is the nemesis of the hierarchy rule."  Then the confusion over that was cleared up.

You went on to say _"Could say something like, "some liquids become solids when..." for a more scientific phrasing I think. But even that is an explanation, and still involves interpretation. It doesn't just exist in nature and get copied around willy nilly from some perfect Form."

_I am confused by this because..."some liquids become solids when..."
1. is NOT an explanation.
2. is not any more scientific phrasing than _"H20 becomes solid..."

_Scientific explanations are called "theories" and do not involve interpretation. Once achieving theory status that explanation, through the rigorous scientific testing process, does not involve interpretation. If it did, then rigorous testing and falsification would not be possible because varying interpretations would yield varying results.

With that said, this sentence becomes nebulous to me, LOL..."_It doesn't just exist in nature and get copied around willy nilly from some perfect Form."

_And then you added the following  two sentences, while interesting, I cannot engage with because in order to do so, I must first agree with your definition of scientific explanation, but I don't...

A. "The freezer we use at work uses electromagnets to keep water from crystalizing as temperatures drop so that when the water does crystalize the crystallization occurs more quickly, this allows the crystal to form with more detail and not break the cell wall of raw food products frozen in this way."

B.  "When human bodies are experiencing frostbite it can actually feel like it's on fire, so this leads many to take off all their clothes to get cool again. We know this is ridiculous because we have the above explanation for it."

And by those final 7 words, I will now show you how I get to the feeling that your communication is nebulous...

_When human bodies are experiencing frostbite it can actually feel like it's on fire, so this leads many to take off all their clothes to get cool again. We know this is ridiculous because we have this explanation: The freezer we use at work uses electromagnets to keep water from crystalizing as temperatures drop so that when the water does crystalize the crystallization occurs more quickly, this allows the crystal to form with more detail and not break the cell wall of raw food products frozen in this way.

_I couldn't draw a straight line from B to A anywhere. In any case, by the time I had read your entire post my brain had already taken an off-ramp at the first sentence.

Originally posted by Cody >
This is an explanation, not an observation. There's also caveats to it regarding the environment and specific temperature.

Could say something like, "some liquids become solids when..." for a more scientific phrasing I think. But even that is an explanation, and still involves interpretation. It doesn't just exist in nature and get copied around willy nilly from some perfect Form.

The freezer we use at work uses electromagnets to keep water from crystalizing as temperatures drop so that when the water does crystalize the crystallization occurs more quickly, this allows the crystal to form with more detail and not break the cell wall of raw food products frozen in this way.

When human bodies are experiencing frostbite it can actually feel like it's on fire, so this leads many to take off all their clothes to get cool again. We know this is ridiculous because we have the above explanation for it.

Reading that sentence also involves interpretation: what is H20, what does it mean to "become...when" (this grammatical structure indicates causality), same with "cold temperatures". I list these things because they, perhaps, seem "obvious," like they are just there. "Cold is obvious, it's cold." "Water is obvious, it's water." But each one of those words is an explanation, in the form of an abstraction, about reality. They exist in many languages in different forms, and there is no perfect language within which to express them. So we could still find better ways to express that explanation, infinitely.

Originally posted by Cody >
 Also, why is "nebulus" such a useful word for describing the way I communicate again?

I think the fact that you lose me on definitions by redefining and/or interchanging between scientific usage and colloquial usage, and THEN extrapolate out further, which results in what sounds to me like a collection of words that, together, make not much sense to me.

Originally posted by Cody >
 I wasn't trying to mislead you, but your interpretation, your conjecturing of my ideas as expressed in English as I have structured it, seems to have been? Or, perhaps I should elaborate?

No need to elaborate. I just couldn't understand his quote because you left out two key words. I understand the quote fine now because I found the source.

Originally posted by Cody > 
 There's also caveats to it regarding the environment and specific temperature.

All of that would be part of the hypothesis that attempts to explain the process of solidification.

In short and to summarize...

I don't agree that observations are theory laden because I am sticking to the scientific definitions of observation and theory and it appears you may be invoking the colloquial use of the term "theory" as in hunch or gut feeling. Therefore, I cannot agree with any supposed subsequent premise that relies on the italicized statement.

Originally posted by Cody >
 This is an explanation, not an observation...

Originally posted by Fidel > 
 H2O becomes solid when in sufficiently cold temperatures.

I disagree. It's an observation. A reply to the question of "How does this liquid become solid?" would be an explanation. If that explanation were rigorously tested and put through the falsification ringer and survived as the best available explanation as to how H2O becomes solid, that explanation becomes accepted by the scientific community as a theory. Anything less is just a hypothesis.

Another example would be evolution. The theory of evolution is what explains how life evolves. It's a theory because it has withstood the falsification ringer.

Regarding the cake cutting:

The principle operates with two constants...
1. If you get a slice, it will be the last remaining slice
2. You certainly should never get a slice before anyone else.

I want to ask some question about this again, still see some issues with it that I don't understand how it would be beneficial to me or anyone. BUT, I again think Josh is right, I think we should move to a new thread specifically for that topic. It's confusing enough as it is in this thread.

H2O becomes solid when in sufficiently cold temperatures

This is an explanation, not an observation. There's also caveats to it regarding the environment and specific temperature.

Could say something like, "some liquids become solids when..." for a more scientific phrasing I think. But even that is an explanation, and still involves interpretation. It doesn't just exist in nature and get copied around willy nilly from some perfect Form.

The freezer we use at work uses electromagnets to keep water from crystalizing as temperatures drop so that when the water does crystalize the crystallization occurs more quickly, this allows the crystal to form with more detail and not break the cell wall of raw food products frozen in this way.

When human bodies are experiencing frostbite it can actually feel like it's on fire, so this leads many to take off all their clothes to get cool again. We know this is ridiculous because we have the above explanation for it.

Reading that sentence also involves interpretation: what is H20, what does it mean to "become...when" (this grammatical structure indicates causality), same with "cold temperatures". I list these things because they, perhaps, seem "obvious," like they are just there. "Cold is obvious, it's cold." "Water is obvious, it's water." But each one of those words is an explanation, in the form of an abstraction, about reality. They exist in many languages in different forms, and there is no perfect language within which to express them. So we could still find better ways to express that explanation, infinitely.

Your version is misleading to me because you omitted "the" and "rule".  Deutsch's makes perfect sense as he is talking about how how explanatory knowledge can cause more rapid course change due to novelty in collective human thinking.

I wasn't trying to mislead you, but your interpretation, your conjecturing of my ideas as expressed in English as I have structured it, seems to have been? Or, perhaps I should elaborate?

Now, why is there a great monotony in the universe at large, and what makes our planet buck that trend? Well, the universe at large is relatively simple. Stars are so simple that we can predict their behavior billions of years into the future, and retrodict how they formed billions of years ago. So why is the universe simple? Basically, it's because big, massive, powerful things strongly affect lesser things, and not vice versa. I call that the hierarchy rule.

Above is the context for the "hierarchy rule," he refers to. "Hierarchy" is a word, and abstraction for a pattern found in nature. It's useful for explanations about reality. But not in the context of human minds and the growth of knowledge. Just as you have done in conversation, I've used a word colloquially. I don't think it's misleading at all any more than saying "the world," can also mean "reality" in many conversations.

Also, why is "nebulus" such a useful word for describing the way I communicate again?

Originally posted by Cody >
 Show me an observation that's not theory laden and I'll show you a charlatan.

I wanted to further examine your offer so here we go...
Observation not theory laden : H2O becomes solid when in sufficiently cold temperatures
Show me a charlatan.

Originally posted by Cody >
 "Explanatory knowledge is the nemesis of hierarchy."

This caption below your Nixon image seemed odd to me so I looked it up. It appears you've been posting it exactly like this on Twitter a few times. But I found that the origin of this comes from David Deutsch's _"But from the cosmic perspective, explanatory knowledge is the nemesis of the hierarchy rule. It's the destroyer of the great monotony."
_
Your version is misleading to me because you omitted "the" and "rule".  Deutsch's makes perfect sense as he is talking about how how explanatory knowledge can cause more rapid course change due to novelty in collective human thinking.