A critique of
’s essay The Deutschian Dead End and why Antifragile by Nassim Taleb has an octopus on its cover.The Deutschian Dead End Is Wide Open
There is no dead end at the beginning of infinity.
Originally published on giolodi.com on 2025/03/28.
When I came across The Deutschian Dead End via Increments Podcast, I was intrigued. Critical rationalism and the work of David Deutsch are all about error correction. For someone to identify and correct errors in those theories would certainly represent an advancement in our understanding of how to foster the creation of new knowledge.
Alas, I found none of that in the essay.
I intended to write a step-by-step critique, but after listening to Vaden’s pushback on Increments and Brett Hall’s commentary, I don’t think that’s necessary.
But here’s something I want to add. A great part of the essay criticizes the behavior of a group of people Kasra, the author, refers to as “critical rationalists”. I haven’t had much exposure with this community, but from the way Kasra describes it I get the impression it is a mostly online group of folks that seem more interested in dunking on socials than in making progress.
That, to me, has little to do with the work of Popper and Deutsch.
If someone reads Conjecture and Refutation or The Beginning of Infinity and comes out of it thinking that Popper and Deutsch are authorities to be followed, they completely missed the point! The problem lies with the readers, not the authors.
Granted, an author might intentionally develop a theory prone to such misinterpretations, but that’s not the case.
David Deutsch and Karl Popper are anti-authority to the core.
David often refuses to give advice in interviews because he does not consider himself in a position to tell the listeners what to do. And Popper, in his Epistemology and the Problem of Peace lecture, warned the audience:
But I would also ask you not to believe anything that I suggest! Please do not believe a word! I know that that is asking too much, as I will speak only the truth, as well as I can. But I warn you: I know nothing, or almost nothing. We all know nothing or almost nothing. I conjecture that that is a basic fact of life. We know nothing, we can only conjecture: we guess.
One does not need to “follow” Deutsch or “believe” in Popper. They work in the realm of ideas, not ideologies.
That Kasra missed the crucial distinction between the ideas themselves and how some readers misinterpreted them puts the entire essay on shaky grounds. It seems more a vent than an effort to provide a critique.
As far as I’m convinced, David Deutsch’s work is no dead end. It remains the beginning of what could be infinity, waiting for someone to genuinely improve upon it.
Why is there an octopus on the cover of Antifragile?
Mischievous author confuses designers.
Originally published on giolodi.com on 2025/03/27.
The covers in one of the paperback reprints of Nassim Taleb’s Incerto series have neat designs featuring animals connected to the books.
Fooled by Randomness has a black cat, for superstition.
The Black Swan obviously has a black swan.
The Bed of Procrustes has an owl, for wisdom.
Antifragile has an octopus, for… ?!
Why is there an octopus on the cover of Antifragile?
Reddit user ‘NotTheAnts’ had a compelling conjecture:
Presumably because octopuses can regrow severed limbs…but doesn’t that make them robust, rather than antifragile?
If so, pretty ironic that the publishers committed the ontological error that the book chiefly warns against. Willing to be corrected though, maybe I’m missing something.
But the reason has more to do with Taleb being a character than the cover designers confusing—like many others do—robustness with antifragility.
Apparently, Taleb is a big fan of squid ink pasta and when the publisher asked for input on the cover, he replied “squid.”
So there you have it: Antifragile features an octopus because its author enjoys eating squid ink.
I guess when your book goes through as many reprints as Taleb’s has, you can afford to sneak in a nod to your favorite food on the cover.
He really loves squid ink pasta…
doesn't seem like you made an earnest effort to understand my points. what is your own explanation for why Popperian philosophy has not become more widely accepted? even Brett Hall acknowledges that Popper is "not that popular" among professional philosophers and scientists. he has his own explanation for this [1] but I'm curious to hear yours.
and I know you think this is a digression, and that we should exclusively argue about the philosophy itself rather than the cultural influence of the philosophy, but I just want you to humor me in exploring this question.
[1] Brett Hall post: https://www.bretthall.org/blog/if-popper-is-so-good-and-useful-and-true-why-isnt-he-more-popular-especially-among-professional-philosophers-and-scientists-shouldnt-this-count-against-him