Inductive
inferences have observations as premises and theories as conclusions.
They are notoriously invalid but often are deemed unavoidable.
Critical rationalism views them as unnecessary. This point of view
grew gradually out of Karl Popper’s attempt to describe science
without their use in Die
beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie (1932-33),
where he still operated within the framework of justificationism,
that is, while viewing the aim of scientific method as the proper
(justified) assessment of the truth value of certain sentences. He
hoped to build a theory of the proper assessment of sentences, that
is, of the possibility of proving the truth or falsity of some
sentences. He began with the fact that a theory is false if it
contradicts a singular sentence describing some observation reports.
Popper then said that such singular sentences were veridical, that
is, truthful as opposed to illusory, so they may be used to produce
final proofs of the falsity of some universal sentences. For example,
the singular sentence, “That swan is black,” if it is a true
report of some observation, can be used to produce a final proof of
the falsity of the universal sentence, “All swans are white.”
But, he argued, proof of universal sentences or the demonstration
that they are probable requires inductive inferences. As a
consequence no such putative proof can be valid.
Popper
himself found the theory he presented in Die
beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie without
chapter 5 inadequate for three reasons. The first reason is that
singular statements are not veridical. He began work on this problem
in chapter 5 of Die
beiden Grundprobleme.
This chapter contains a theory of science which differs on important
points from the theory found in the rest of that volume. The second
reason that Popper’s first attempt broke down is that one can
circumvent refutations by ad
hoc stratagems,
as Hans Reichenbach quickly pointed out in a note which responded to
Popper’s first publication of his view in Erkenntnis.
The third reason was Popper’s inability to handle the problem of
the demarcation of science from non-science with his idea that we
show how science properly assigns truth values to sentences with no
inductive inference. On a justificationist theory of the task of the
philosophy of science such as Reichenbach’s, which was identical to
Popper’s theory as he wrote Die
beiden Grundproblemewithout
chapter 5, science should be demarcated by the proper assignment of
truth values: science is the set of sentences with justifiably
assigned truth values. The task of the philosophy of science is to
explain how these assignments are properly made. (Reichenbach said
the calculus of probabilities serves that purpose.) Popper argued
that it is not possible to properly assign either the truth value
True or some degree of probability to universal sentences. He called
such sentences “fictions”, which is a term he had earlier taken
over from Hans Vaihinger. On the theory presented in Die
beiden Grundprobleme without
chapter 5, after science had done its job, there were still, on the
one hand, some fictions which ought to be deemed scientific such as
the theories of the Würzburg school in psychology and, perhaps, as
he said later, Einstein’s physics, and, on the other hand, other
fictions which should be deemed unscientific, such as the
psychologies of Freud and Adler. He could not distinguish between
these two sets of theories within his justificationist framework,
since, on this view, only proofs or refutations of these theories
could do that. He asserted, however, that no proof was possible and
refutations could establish only the falsity of universal
propositions.
As
a consequence of these three difficulties Popper developed an
entirely different theory of science in chapter 5, then in Logik
der Forschung.
In order to overcome the problems his first view faced, he adopted
two central strategies. First, he reformulated the task of the
philosophy of science. Rather than presenting scientific method as a
tool for properly assigning truth values to sentences, he presented
rules of scientific method as conducive to the growth of knowledge.
Apparently he still held that only proven or refuted sentences could
take truth values. But this view is incompatible with his new
philosophy of science as it appears in his Logik
der Forschung:
there he had to presume that some non-refuted theories took truth
values, that is, that they are true or false as the case may be, even
though they have been neither proved nor refuted. It is the job of
scientists to discover their falsity when they can. So, he worked
around the difficulty posed by the fact that, on the one hand, he had
to assume that theories were refutable and thus had truth values,
whereas, on the other hand, he thought that only proven or refuted
theories had truth values at all. He argued that his view could be
interpreted as realist or as antirealist. He hedged his bets as best
he could and appealed to Mach, who had stipulated that one should
avoid participation in any metaphysical dispute.
In Logik
der Forschung Popper
solved his three initial difficulties in the following ways. First,
instead of claiming that singular sentences were veridical, he said
that basic statements are only provisionally accepted, provided that
they were repeatable and so testable. He thereby introduced the
following rule: consider only repeatable basic statements. He claimed
that the provisional acceptance of basic statements does not
disqualify them as refutations of theories—no longer simply
universal sentences—because for the most part we can agree on which
basic sentences we provisionally assume to be true. Second, he
proposed the rule that one should always replace some theory which is
contradicted by a basic statement by whichever new alternative has
the highest degree of falsifiability. This rule should guarantee that
refutations lead to progress. Reichenbach had declared that there was
no logic of scientific method, that is, no proof or refutation. The
basis for his claim that there could be no refutation was that any
theory could be protected from a putative refutation with some ad hoc
maneuver. Popper responded to Reichenbach with his Logik
der Forschung (Logic
of Research) and by introducing methodology into his deliberations.
The methodological rule enabled him to avoid ad hoc protection of
theories and thus enabled him to show how theories could be refuted.
Third, he introduced the rule: only refutable theories—the term
“fiction” no longer appears in his work—are scientific and may
be deemed scientific.
This
view was no longer justificationist, that is, it no longer claimed
properly to assign truth values to sentences. All “assignments”
are conjectural. But Popper had at that point no non-justificationist
theory of rationality in general; his theory applied to science
alone. He did not at that point notice problems which his theory
raised for the broader framework of rationality which all
philosophers of science had used since antiquity, the framework that
identified the rational with the proven.
The
conflict between Popper’s new theory of science and his older
theory that only proven or refuted sentences can take truth values
was removed by Tarski. Tarski’s definition of truth, as Tarski
explained to Popper, allows for non-proven but still true sentences.
Tarski thereby did away with the theory of truth that had given
Popper so much trouble. Tarski did not necessarily offer Popper an
adequate theory of truth for his philosophy of science. But Tarski
did free him from a false theory which was a great impediment to the
construction of a truly fallibilist, realist theory of science.
Popper never clearly explained the importance that Tarski had for him
at the time. This failure to explain how the logic of his problem
changed as a result of Tarski’s theory was part of his repression
of the fact that he had held a justificationist theory of truth for a
long time, even after he began writing a fallibilist book. After his
meeting with Tarski, he was free to develop his fallibilist theory of
science in new ways, because he could claim that theories could be
true even though there was no proof of them. During his earlier years
in London, during 1946-1965 or so, he returned to the possibilities
this fact opened up.
In Logik
der Forschung Popper
developed a theory of the growth of scientific knowledge without
justification. But he had no general theory of rationality without
justification. Indeed, he still limited rationality to science and
methodology. However, at least three problems arose for this limited
view of rationality.
Popper
maintained at that point that scientists gain knowledge not by proofs
but by refutations of good conjectures and by replacing them with new
and better ones. These new conjectures avoid earlier mistakes,
explain more, and invite new tests. He originally thought of this
theory as eo
ipsoa
theory of rationality: outside of science and methodology he made no
allowance for rationality. He identified research, science and
methodology, as the title of his book indicates.
Difficulties
piled up fast. First, if rationality is limited to science, how is
methodology rational? Methodology can only be rational if methodology
is the empirical study of science—as Whewell said—or if
non-empirical research can be rational. Popper could not view
methodology as a science of science because he held that it is not
merely descriptive but also prescriptive. Yet it should be rational.
The
second problem arose as Popper tried to apply his methodology of the
physical sciences to the social sciences. The
Poverty of Historicism and The
Open Society and Its Enemies defend
the open society on the grounds that only open societies preserve
reason, that is, criticism, and as a consequence only open societies
can be civilized. But why is a choice for the open society rational?
He had no answer. He merely said that the acceptance of reason was a
consequence of sympathy for others. Nothing can be said to convince
those to change their minds who accept the barbaric consequences of
fascism or communism.
The
third problem concerns metaphysics. Before he had ever developed his
own philosophy of science, he had defended in his doctoral
dissertation the view that metaphysical hypotheses can serve as
working hypotheses in the construction of scientific theories. His
discussion there merely concerned the use of physicalist metaphysics
as a guide for psychological research. He said that this was fine,
but one should not decide a
priori that
a view of psychological processes as physical is needed or even
possible. Scientific research—he was not clear then what that
meant—should decide this. He was later pressed, however, to decide
between competing metaphysical theories with which to interpret
science, even in the absence of a scientific answer. Was the world
determined or not? Questions such as this raised the question as to
whether one metaphysical theory can be better or worse than another
and whether one could find out which one is better. He gave up his
earlier view of rationality as limited to scientific research and
methodology, but he still insisted that for science some metaphysical
theories are merely heuristic, and no more than that.
To
extend his theory that rationality consisted of scientific research
and methodology alone, Popper loosened his standard of rationality.
Rejecting the older standard of rationality -- proof - - as too high,
he began to view the standard for science, refutability, as too high
for the rationality that obtains outside science. Whereas earlier he
had replaced justification with refutation, he now replaced
refutation with criticism. Popper thereby created a new philosophical
perspective by generalizing his theory of scientific research. The
name he gave to this extension is “critical rationalism.” Popper
introduced it in the introduction to his Conjectures
and Refutations,
where he characterized it briefly as the critical attitude. He used
it also to describe views he developed earlier, in The
Open Society and Its Enemies.
Could
his critical rationalism apply to other fields? Could various fields
also not only do without (epistemological) justification but also
raise their levels of rationality with the use of critical methods?
Critical rationalism became a project to employ critical methods as a
substitute for epistemological justification in all areas of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment