Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty, part 1: a rejection of empiricism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/10/karl-popper-enemy-uncertaintyPhilosopher Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) at his home in Croydon, London, August 31 1992. Photograph: David Levenson/Getty Images
You might ask why we should care what an Austrian philosopher of science who has been dead for 18 years thought about the nature of scientific inquiry. Yet much of what Karl Popper contributed to the philosophy of science has now passed into mainstream thought, into the currency of that nebulous, tricky ontology known as "common sense". In the case of philosophers such as Popper, their work is, in a sense, too recent to be able to evaluate with the level of hindsight that we might apply to more distant thinkers, such as David Hume, and yet it is worth attempting to unpack.
Born in 1902, in Vienna, the young Popper demonstrated a broad range of interests (music was a dominant passion) and an inquiring mind: he entered into the intellectual hotbed of Austrian culture, attending lectures by Einstein, investigating the psychotherapeutic theories of Freud and Adler, and becoming a Marxist. He decided at the age of 17 that the latter ideology was unsustainable, in large part as a result of an incident during his brief time in the Austrian Communist party, in which eight of Popper's friends were shot by the police in a riot instigated by the party in 1919. When Popper, somewhat naturally, complained to party leaders about this, he was told that loss of life was inevitable in the runup to revolution: Popper disagreed, and this sparked his lifelong commitment to political moderation, tolerance and liberalism.
The search for truth was, Popper considered, the strongest motivation for scientific discovery. His role was to determine how we can ascribe truth to the claims made by science, religion and politics. He did not, however, become a member of the Vienna Circle, that group of intellectuals who, following on from the work of Wittgenstein (the Tractatus mark-one version of that philosopher) aimed at the unification of the sciences and the wholesale rejection of metaphysics. Popper's antipathy to Wittgenstein meant that he was not invited to become a member of this particular group, but being cast in the role of the formal opposition seems to have honed his own thinking on logical positivism. Following on from Hume and the latter's rejection of induction, Popper took a stand against an empiricist view of science, endeavouring to show via his rejection of verificationism, and consequent espousal of falsificationism, how scientific theories progress. We will be looking at this more closely in future articles, but the fundamental principle of falsificationism is this: any contradictory instance to a theory is sufficient to falsify that theory, regardless of how many positive examples appear to support it.
Attempts to present theories such as Marxism, Adlerian psychology and astrology as scientific are subjected by Popper to his own analysis of falsificationism, and fail the test. It is perhaps worth noting that Popper's own doctorate was in psychology, attained in 1928.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 2062 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Karl Popper, the enemy of certainty, part 1: a rejection of empiricism (Original Post)
xchrom
Sep 2012
OP
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)1. K&R. I subscribe to Popper's ideas of Falsificationism.
Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2012, 01:35 PM - Edit history (1)
He also gave us Marxists a needed reality check, pointing out that it is OK to admit that some of Marx's predictions were falsified (Marx did not expect the emergence of the Capitalist Welfare State, which was created by Capitalists like FDR trying to save themselves from a revolution). IMO he liberated Marxist economics and sociology from the Hegelian German-Historicist straight-jacket of Marx's historical prophesizing.
Note that despite being associated with Austrian School Libertarians like Hayek, he was a supporter of the European-style strong welfare state.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)2. I am a huge Open Society proponent.
Soros is carrying the banner now.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)4. K&R.
"It ain't the things you don't know that gets you, it's the things you know that ain't so."