For the state of the art on the philosophy of knowledge, which people call epistemology,

you can basically skip everything and jump straight to David Deutsch.

I think that's right. If you just want to know epistemology, you read David Deutsch, full stop.

That said, for some people it helps to know the history, the counter arguments, where he's coming from,

the existing theories of

knowledge, like the justified true belief theory or the inductive theory of knowledge. These are so

deeply embedded into us, both by school learning, but also by everyday experience. Induction

seems like it should work. You watch the sun rise every day, the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

That just seems like common sense. So many people believe in that, that if you just read Deutsch, you would see him shooting down these things, but you yourself would not have those things in solid footing. So you might imagine some counter-example exists. When I first read Deutsch, a long time ago, I didn't quite get it. I treated it just like any other book that any other physicists

had had written. So I would read Paul Davies and I would read Carlo Rovelli and I would read

Deutsche and I would treat them the same level of contemplation, time, and respect. It turned out I was

wrong. It turned out that Deutsch was actually operating at a much deeper level. He had a lot of

different theories that coherently hung together and they created a world philosophy where all the pieces reinforce each other. It might help to read others and not just skip to Deutsch, but I would definitely start with Deutsch. Then, if you're not sure about it, I would read some of the others, and then I'll come back to Deutsch and try again. And then you'll see how he addresses those issues.

Deutsch himself would refer you to Popper. He would say, oh, I'm just repeating Popper. Not quite true.

I find Popper much less approachable, much harder to read, much less clear of a writer, although I think here both Deutsch and Brett Hall would disagree with me. They find Popper very lucid. I find him very

difficult to read. For whatever reason, I find Deutsch easier to read. They find Popper very lucid. I find him very difficult to read. For whatever reason,

I find Deutsch easier to read. Maybe because Popper spent a lot more time elucidating core points.

Popper was writing for philosophers. Deutsch is not writing for philosophers. Deutsch is not even

writing for scientists. Deutsch is not writing for you. I get the feeling Deutsch is writing for himself. He's just elucidating his own thoughts and how they all connect together. I also don't think you're going to get maximal value out of D'Irish just reading the epistemology, although that is absolutely where everybody should start as the first three chapters at the beginning of infinity. Ironically, in the beginning of infinity, the first few chapters and the last few chapters are the easiest and the most accessible. The middle is a slog because that goes into

quantum computation, quantum physics, evolution, etc. That's where I think people struggle because

it does require not necessarily a mathematical or scientific background, but at least a comfort level

with scientific concepts and principles.

...