Epistemological philosophy advanced by Karl Popper
Critical rationalism is an epistemological philosophy advanced by Karl Popper on the basis that, if a statement cannot be logically deduced (from what is known), it might nevertheless be possible to logically falsify it. Following Hume, Popper rejected any inductive logic that is ampliative, i.e., any logic that can provide more knowledge than deductive logic. So, the idea is that, if we cannot get it logically, we should at the least try to logically falsify it, which led Popper to his falsifiability criterion. Popper wrote about critical rationalism in many works, including: The Logic of Scientific Discovery(1934/1959),[1] The Open Society and its Enemies(1945),[2] Conjectures and Refutations(1963),[3] Unended Quest(1976),[4] and The Myth of the Framework(1994).[5]
Critical rationalists hold that scientific theories and any other claims to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized, and (if they have empirical content) can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Thus claims to knowledge may be contrastingly and normatively evaluated. They are either falsifiable and thus empirical (in a very broad sense), or not falsifiable and thus non-empirical. Those claims to knowledge that are potentially falsifiable can then be admitted to the body of empirical science, and then further differentiated according to whether they are retained or are later actually falsified. If retained, further differentiation may be made on the basis of how much subjection to criticism they have received, how severe such criticism has been, and how probable the theory is, with the least probable theory that still withstands attempts to falsify it being the one to be preferred.[6] That it is the least probable theory that is to be preferred is one of the contrasting differences between critical rationalism and classical views on science, such as positivism, which holds that one should instead accept the most probable theory.[6] The least probable theory is preferred because it is the one with the highest information content and most open to future falsification.
Critical rationalism as a discourse positioned itself against what its proponents took to be epistemologically relativist philosophies, particularly post-modernist or sociological approaches to knowledge. Critical rationalism holds that knowledge is objective (in the sense of being embodied in various substrates and in the sense of not being reducible to what humans individually "know"), and also that truth is objective (exists independently of social mediation or individual perception, but is "really real").
However, this contrastive, critical approach to objective knowledge is quite different from more traditional views that also hold knowledge to be objective. (These include the classical rationalism of the Enlightenment, the verificationism of the logical positivists, or approaches to science based on induction, a supposed form of logical inference which critical rationalists reject, in line with David Hume.) For criticism is all that can be done when attempting to differentiate claims to knowledge, according to the critical rationalist. Reason is the organon of criticism, not of support; of tentative refutation, not of proof.
Supposed positive evidence (such as the provision of "good reasons" for a claim, or its having been "corroborated" by making successful predictions) does nothing to bolster, support, or prove a claim, belief, or theory.
In this sense, critical rationalism turns the normal understanding of a traditional rationalist, and a realist, on its head. Especially the view that a theory is better if it is less likely to be true is in direct opposition to the traditional positivistic view, which holds that one should seek theories that have a high probability.[6] Popper notes that this "may illustrate Schopenhauer's remark that the solution of a problem often first looks like a paradox and later like a truism". Even a highly unlikely theory that conflicts with a current observation (and is thus false, like "all swans are white") must be considered to be better than one which fits observations perfectly, but is highly probable (like "all swans have a color"). This insight is the crucial difference between naive falsificationism and critical rationalism. The lower probability theory is favoured by critical rationalism because the greater the informative content of a theory the lower will be its probability, for the more information a statement contains, the greater will be the number of ways in which it may turn out to be false. The rationale behind this is simply to make it as easy as possible to find out whether the theory is false so that it can be replaced by one that is closer to the truth. It is not meant as a concession to justificatory epistemology, like assuming a theory to be "justifiable" by asserting that it is highly unlikely and yet fits observation.
Critical rationalism rejects the classical position that knowledge is justified true belief; it instead holds the exact opposite: that, in general, knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief.[7] It is unjustified because of the non-existence of good reasons. It is untrue, because it usually contains errors that sometimes remain unnoticed for hundreds of years. And it is not belief either, because scientific knowledge, or the knowledge needed to, for example, build an airplane, is contained in no single person's mind. It is only what is recorded in artifacts such as books.
William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called justificationism, the view that scientific theories can be justified. Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.
According to Bartley, some justificationists are positive about this mistake. They are nave rationalists, and thinking that their knowledge can indeed be founded, in principle, it may be deemed certain to some degree, and rational.
Other justificationists are negative about these mistakes. They are epistemological relativists, and think (rightly, according to the critical rationalist) that you cannot find knowledge, that there is no source of epistemological absolutism. But they conclude (wrongly, according to the critical rationalist) that there is therefore no rationality, and no objective distinction to be made between the true and the false.
By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist (a proponent of non-justificationism)[8] regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.
Non-justificationism is also accepted by David Miller and Karl Popper.[9] However, not all proponents of critical rationalism oppose justificationism; it is supported most prominently by John W. N. Watkins. In justificationism, criticism consists of trying to show that a claim cannot be reduced to the authority or criteria that it appeals to. That is, it regards the justification of a claim as primary, while the claim itself is secondary. By contrast, non-justificational criticism works towards attacking claims themselves.
The rejection of "positivist" approaches to knowledge occurs due to various pitfalls that positivism falls into.
1. The nave empiricism of induction was shown to be illogical by Hume. A thousand observations of some event A coinciding with some event B does not allow one to logically infer that all A events coincide with B events. According to the critical rationalist, if there is a sense in which humans accrue knowledge positively by experience, it is only by pivoting observations off existing conjectural theories pertinent to the observations, or off underlying cognitive schemas which unconsciously handle perceptions and use them to generate new theories. But these new theories advanced in response to perceived particulars are not logically "induced" from them. These new theories may be wrong. The myth that we induce theories from particulars is persistent because when we do this we are often successful, but this is due to the advanced state of our evolved tendencies. If we were really "inducting" theories from particulars, it would be inductively logical to claim that the sun sets because I get up in the morning, or that all buses must have drivers in them (if you've never seen an empty bus).
2. Popper and David Miller showed in 1983[10] that evidence supposed to partly support a hypothesis can, in fact, only be neutral to, or even be counter-supportive of the hypothesis.
3. Related to the point above, David Miller,[11] attacks the use of "good reasons" in general (including evidence supposed to support the excess content of a hypothesis). He argues that good reasons are neither attainable, nor even desirable. Basically, Miller asserts that all arguments purporting to give valid support for a claim are either circular or question-begging. That is, if one provides a valid deductive argument (an inference from premises to a conclusion) for a given claim, then the content of the claim must already be contained within the premises of the argument (if it is not, then the argument is ampliative and so is invalid). Therefore, the claim is already presupposed by the premises, and is no more "supported" than are the assumptions upon which the claim rests, i.e. begging the question.
William Warren Bartley developed a variation of critical rationalism that he called pancritical rationalism.
Argentine-Canadian philosopher of science Mario Bunge, who edited a book dedicated to Popper in 1964 that included a paper by Bartley,[12] appreciated critical rationalism but found it insufficient as a comprehensive philosophy of science,[13] so he built upon it (and many other ideas) to formulate his own account of scientific realism in his many publications.[14]
Continue reading here:
Critical rationalism - Wikipedia
- "I think, Therefore I Am", What Does This Descartes Quote Mean? - Exploring your Mind - January 7th, 2024 [January 7th, 2024]
- Jacek Tabisz on Humanism and Rationalism in Polish Society - The Good Men Project - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Labor icon Bill Hayden to be honoured at state funeral - Yahoo News Australia - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Thom Workman explores the roots of the war on science - NB Media Co-op - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Did the Enlightenment lead to the climate crisis? | Aviva Chomsky - IAI - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Exeter University to Offer Degree in Magic - Redbrick - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- How Apple TV's 'Lessons in Chemistry' compares to the novel - The Spokesman Review - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Rupture and Reconstruction: A Koan About Zen Itself Berggruen ... - Berggruen Institute - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Adamu Fika and persona of the old-school remarkable bureaucrat - Tribune Online - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Craig Newmark Retired from Craigslist. Now He Wants to Save ... - Observer - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Is the US turning into a Christofascist state? - The Real News Network - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Designer John Heffernan reinvented Aston Martin and Bentley with ... - Classic Driver - November 2nd, 2023 [November 2nd, 2023]
- Empiricism and Rationalism: How Immanuel Kant Changed History - January 6th, 2023 [January 6th, 2023]
- What Is Surrealism? | Artsy - December 28th, 2022 [December 28th, 2022]
- Rationalism vs. Empiricism | Concepts, Differences & Examples - Video ... - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Rationalist Judaism: Anti-Rationalism and the Charedi Vote - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Age of Enlightenment - Wikipedia - November 23rd, 2022 [November 23rd, 2022]
- Nizari Isma'ilism - Wikipedia - October 21st, 2022 [October 21st, 2022]
- Jewish philosophy - Wikipedia - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Humanism - Wikipedia - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Word of God and Work of God - Kashmir Observer - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- [Renaissance, Science and God: Paradox of Modern Western EducationVII] Individualism and Decline of the West - Greater Kashmir - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Exciting Puranic and Siddhantic Cosmology Conference | ISKCON News - ISKCON News - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- How red voracity will be used and thrown in West: The Communism of errors - MyVoice - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Words Mean Things: 'Decolonization' - The Swaddle - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- When Lancashire was rocked by a 2.9 magnitude earthquake the last time fracking came to town - Lancs Live - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- On the brink: How yesterday's fears can help us move through today's war - OnlySky - October 17th, 2022 [October 17th, 2022]
- Rationalism: What Is It and How to Apply It To Everyday Life? - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Rationalism - The Decision Lab - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Rationalism - Teachmint Explanation and Meaning| - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Martin Scorsese: rinse and repeat self-indulgence | Sean Egan - The Critic - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- The Origin Review - LFF 2022 - HeyUGuys - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- No, Critical Race Theory Isn't About Teaching That 'Slavery Is Real' - The Federalist - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- The Journey of the Holy Shroud of Turin - National Catholic Register - October 8th, 2022 [October 8th, 2022]
- Bengal's Tryst With Alternative Readings Of The Ramayana - Outlook India - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Warm and minimal: Riverview Courtyard House - Architecture AU - October 2nd, 2022 [October 2nd, 2022]
- Philosophy of social science - Wikipedia - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Expanding open access to scientific knowledge and discussion - EurekAlert - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Rome & the World: Italys elections and the Church Etienne Gilson 40 years after his death - Aleteia - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Liz Truss and the rise of the libertarian right - The New Statesman - September 29th, 2022 [September 29th, 2022]
- Debate: Theres Anger at AMU Dropping Maududi, Qutb. But Why is Sir Syeds Islam Not Taught? - The Wire - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- My Say: Allowing corruption is a greater danger than corruption itself - The Edge Markets MY - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- 'Date Me' Google Docs and the Hyper-Optimized Quest for Love - WIRED - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Advaita: Beyond monotheism and polytheism - Times of India - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Looming threats to Pakistans integrity - Global Village space - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Florence Pugh and Sebastin Lelio on the Battle Between Religion and Science in The Wonder - IndieWire - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- How Affirmative Action Was Derailed by Diversity - The Chronicle of Higher Education - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- What's the Issue with Classical Liberalism and Religion? - Independent Institute - September 6th, 2022 [September 6th, 2022]
- Evidently, Biden Does Not Know About the False Positive Risk ... - Substack - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- The Jewish and Intellectual Origins of this Famously Non-Jewish Jew - Jewish Journal - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Culture, progress and the future: Can the West survive its own myths? - Salon - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- William Brooks: From Western Traditions to Political Indoctrination: A Cultural History of Education - The Epoch Times - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Attack On Salman Rushdie Manifests Barbarism In The Name Of Religion: Taslima Nasrin - Outlook India - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Britain doesnt need a public holiday to remember the slave trade - The Spectator - August 29th, 2022 [August 29th, 2022]
- Manny Montes: Origins of critical theory - The Union - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Overcoming the Aryan-Dravidian divide - The Hindu - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Kid Stuff: Why Have Artists Been So Drawn to Childrens Books? - ARTnews - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- The Surprising Religious Diversity of America's 13 Colonies - History - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- 'It destroys your soul' - the human toll of war - New Zealand Herald - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Edinburgh University is learning the hard way that there's a price to pay for going woke - The Telegraph - July 29th, 2022 [July 29th, 2022]
- Aquinas and the State - The American Conservative - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Jordan Peterson is wrong about the postmodernists - Spiked - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Had been staying in India since 2015 with a fake passport, voter ID and driving license: Bangladeshi Faisal Ahmed arrested for the murder of Hindu... - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- The Liberation of the Arabs From the Global Left - Tablet Magazine - July 13th, 2022 [July 13th, 2022]
- Roe v. Wade in the dustbin of history - The Spectator Australia - June 30th, 2022 [June 30th, 2022]
- What is Rationalism? | Rationalism Philosophy & Examples - Video ... - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Hume's Fork Explained - Fact / Myth - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- Is it time for the dream of North Sydney Bears' long-awaited return to finally become a reality? | Sam Perry - The Guardian - June 29th, 2022 [June 29th, 2022]
- It's the economy, stupid - The Spectator Australia - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- Jon Ronson: In 2008 Graham Linehan told me 'Join Twitter, the place where no one fights' - The Irish Times - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- The 50 Most Important People of the Middle Ages - Medievalists.net - June 1st, 2022 [June 1st, 2022]
- New Aussie rules: Conservative values have fallen out of fashion - The Spectator - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- The week in TV: The Essex Serpent; the Baftas; Fergal Keane: Living With PTSD; Clark - The Guardian - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- These Iconic Scenes From The X-Files Ask if We Are Alone in the Universe - 25YearsLaterSite.com - May 15th, 2022 [May 15th, 2022]
- Rationalism, Pluralism, and Fear in the Speech Debate - Liberal Currents - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- After School Satan Club rejected by Northern York School Board vote - PennLive - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- 12 Reader Views on Where America Is Going Wrong - The Atlantic - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- Bicentenary Year of Mirat-ul-Akhbar: Indias Pioneering Persian Newspaper that Embodied Resistance - NewsClick - April 20th, 2022 [April 20th, 2022]
- The illusion of evidence based medicine - The BMJ - March 18th, 2022 [March 18th, 2022]
- Dubai property market is in firm control of supply and demand - Gulf News - March 18th, 2022 [March 18th, 2022]