Karl R. Popper (1902–1994)
Scientific Method and Research Ethics
4. The Value of Science
G REG B OGNAR
Stockholm University
Born in Vienna in an upper middle class
Jewish family (that converted to
Lutheranism);
1918–1919 attends university as a guest
student; brief association with Marxist
student movement;
1922–1928 formal university student,
Doctorate in Psychology;
1934 The Logic of Scientific Discovery;
1937 emigrates to New Zealand, teaches in Christchurch (fleeing
Nazism);
1945 The Open Society and Its Enemies;
1946– moves to London School of Economics;
1957 The Poverty of Historicism.
Philosophy of science
Demarcation problem. How to distinguish science from pseudo-science?
Falsificationism. A hypothesis is scientific if and only if it can potentially
be refuted by some possible observation.
Falsificationism turns out to be the right account of testing in
science; confirmation of scientific hypotheses is not possible.
The criterion for distinguishing scientific and pseudo-scientific
hypothesis turns out to be the very same criterion that can be used
for evaluating scientific hypothesis!
E.g., creationism, evolution by natural selection, homeopathy,
astrology, the universe as a simulation, conspiracy theories.
Fallibilism. We can never have certainty about empirical facts.
All that any observational test (observation or experiment)
can do is to show that a theory is false.
The success of science
The natural sciences (together with technology, engineering, etc.)
have massively benefited societies and transformed the world.
Basic question: Can there be a science of history?
Can social science be used to transform societies?
Historicism: the aim of the social sciences is historical prediction which is
possible by discovering the laws of history.
E.g., organizing economic activity by centralized planning.
Utopianism: the view that social and historical development has an
ultimate aim (“the end of history”). Political action ought to
be determined by, and to serve, the aim of reaching this
ultimate aim.
+ Is it possible to use the social sciences as a tool for
political programs, just as engineers use the natural
sciences to achieve technological results?
Historicism and utopianism
Historicism and utopianism together imply large-scale social engineering:
limiting liberty in order to advance towards the utopian ideal;
extending the power of the state over citizens in order to control and
direct the “historical forces”;
preferring holistic reforms rather than small-scale steps with the
consequence of lack of adaptability;
utopian social engineering cannot account for the “human factor”—
as a solution, it must embark on the transformation of humans
themselves, rather than just the transformation of institutions.
Therefore, holistic social experimentation requires the centralization
of power, which necessarily leads to coercion and compulsion.
This requires the suppression of public criticism, which is
self-defeating: there is no mechanism to learn about the outcomes
and effects of the experiment.
E.g., Marxism, fascism/nazism, theocracy, “illiberal democracy.”
The argument against historicism
(1) “The course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of
human knowledge.”
(2) “We cannot predict, by rational or scientific methods, the future
growth of our scientific knowledge.”
(3) “We cannot, therefore, predict the future course of human history.”
(4) “This means that we must reject the possibility of a theoretical
history. . . There can be no scientific theory of historical development
serving as a basis for historical prediction.”
(5) Therefore, historicism collapses.
Why utopianism is pseudo-science
Utopianism starts out with creating a society that “fits” human
nature (or psychology), but it inevitably ends up attempting the
transformation of human nature.
(This is an admission of the failure of utopianism as a scientific
theory: since those who cannot fit in the Utopia are deemed to be
incapable to be transformed, the initial claim about the desirability of
the utopian state can never be falsified.)
E.g., Marxism: the combination of a utopia (Communism) with
historicism (as a “scientific” method).
Marxian utopia: a state without political or economic coercion, based
on the voluntary cooperation of all according their abilities, with
everyone’s needs satisfied;
Marxist historicism: historical progress is scientifically inevitable (not
a matter of choice or moral decision).
Other examples: authoritarian traditionalism (utopia is past golden
age), theocracy (utopia is transcendental).
The open society
Traditional or tribalistic societies are closed: there is no critical
attitude towards tradition, because there is no distinction between
natural laws and conventions.
Collectivist and authoritarian societies are also closed because they
make knowledge political.
Open societies begin to appear with the distinction between natural
laws (to be discovered by science) and conventional laws (to be
argued for and justified). The distinction makes it possible to have a
critical attitude towards tradition.
The distinction is epistemological rather than political:
open societies are the political manifestation of accepting fallibilism;
they necessarily accept value pluralism.
A necessary condition of an open society is freedom of thought and
expression, including thought and expression in scientific research.
Arguments for freedom of expression
Freedom of expression is necessary for individual self-expression and
self-determination;
a part of it is that it’s necessary to be able to listen to others’
expression.
Freedom of expression is a precondition of good government (and
democracy).
Freedom of expression (and information) is a check on government.
Freedom of expression helps manage diversity, promote tolerance, and
resolve conflict.
Freedom of expression promotes discovery and innovation.
Freedom of expression enables the discovery of truth. The truth is
more likely to emerge if views and ideas can freely compete. (Free
speech as a “search engine for truth.”)
+ “It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any
inherent power denied to error, of prevailing against the dungeon and
the stake.” (J.S.Mill)
The challenge of epistemological anarchism
Epistemological anarchism
Paul K. Feyerabend (1924–1994), born in Vienna;
1952 studies under Popper at LSE;
1975 Against Method; 1978 Science in a Free Society.
Epistemological anarchism. There is no single scientific method; “anything
goes.” There is no philosophical reconstruction of science.
E.g., no theory is consistent with all the facts; hence
falsificationism must be rejected.
Science is anarchistic, rather than ordered;
Scientific theories are accepted or ignored for
non-rational reasons;
Science is just one “ideology” among others;
Only epistemological anarchism is compatible with a
free society.
Epistemological anarchism vs the open society
“The separation of science and non-science is not only artificial
but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge.”
Epistemological anarchism refuses to take seriously the demarcation
problem;
“The separation of state and church must be complemented by
the separation of state and science, that most recent, most
aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution.”
It ignores the fact that pseudo-sciences are not just alternative
traditions but claim the authority of science;
“In a democracy scientific institutions, research programmes, and
suggestions must therefore be subjected to public control, there
must be a separation of state and science just as there is a
separation between state and religious institutions, and science
should be taught as one view among many and not as the one
and only road to truth and reality.”
“A free society is a society in which all traditions have equal
rights and equal access to the centers of power.”
It fails to account for our confidence in scientific and other kinds of
beliefs;
It fails to account for the massive benefits that science has created for
humanity;
It fails to take a critical attitude towards tradition;
It confuses value pluralism with radical subjectivism.
+ What sort of society would you want to live in? The free society of
epistemological anarchism or the open society of fallibism?