I don't think he hates Popper. I will resist the urge to answer this question, because I can't and shouldn't speak for Eliezer.

My own opinion is that both Popper and Feynmann were intelligent, and far more rational than the average person, or even the average scientist, especially when for their time. Both of them pushed rationality forwards, but with the introduction of Bayesian epistemology it can be pushed further still, and for the first time made rigorous. It is not their fault that they were born to early to see this happen, but this doesn't mean we should prevent it from happening out of respect for them.

As Eliezer said, "heroes are milestones to tick off in your rear-view mirror".

Cool that we all like Feynman. But Feynman was in the Popperian tradition, so I don't see how Yudkowsky could be building on Feynman when he says he is "dethroning Popper". Can you point me to a place in the sequences where Feynman is discussed?

Can I make a serious request?

Please, try really hard to cut back on the 'us versus them' mentality. Earlier in this thread someone tried to explain what Yudkowsky means when he says 'traditional rationality' and the process he mentioned that such people often mention Popper, which they do (not every Popperian shares your views). Now you are saying that someone is not allowed to say 'I think Feynmann was a reality smart guy, he had a lot of good advice and reading his books as a kid set me down a very good path' without accepting everything Popper said.

If one has a manufacturing process that often produces below-specification products, it seems odd to suggest that one should develop an extensive inspection and testing process.

One should really just develop a better manufacturing process.

(in this analogy, traditional rationalism + science is the old manufacturing process, Popperism is the extensive inspection process, and Bayesianism is the new manufacturing process)

All epistemologies purport to be good for developing knowledge. We dispute the notion here that Popperism is as good at arriving at true conclusions in practice. You tend to run into errors with regards to privileging the hypothesis in particular, and to privileging clever arguers whose conclusions are not tied to the evidence.

If you want to further discuss this matter, please read the sequences, which were written to provide people with the shared base of knowledge necessary to hold fruitful discussions here, so that we wouldn't have to keep providing constant corrections, explanations and clarifications.

If you want to dispute that the criticisms we have with regards to Popper's epistemology are legitimate, please do so after reading the sequences; it will help you understand why we've made them, and encourage others to take your arguments seriously. Otherwise you would be wasting your time.