Karl Popper

Lakatos é um filósofo que fez parte do círculo dos discípulos de Popper e que até certo ponto seguiu seu mestre. Ao elaborar sua noção de programa de investigação científica adotou muitas ideias defendidas por Popper, mas também tinha a pretensão de superá-lo Neste trabalho, tomando por base a noção de “programa de investigação”, que no nosso entender se faz presente no pensamento dos dois filósofos, o nosso objetivo é investigar em que aspectos Lakatos deu um passo a frente de (...) seu mestre. Para tal, iremos primeiramente, evidenciar que em Popper já se encontra elaborada a noção de “programa de investigação”, considerando suas ideias acerca da “estrutura organizada,” que norteia as investigações científicas e de “programa de investigação metafísica”. Posteriormente, iremos apresentar a noção de “programa de investigação científica” de Lakatos como uma releitura dos programas popperianos, procurando evidenciar que ele deu unidade e maior sistematicidade aos mesmos e procurou solucionar certos impasses que os fragilizavam. (shrink)

This paper examines the liberal society that Popper lauds, that aims to be truly open, and discusses why another, more communitarian kind of society, particularly societies in Africa, may also reflect the quest for intellectual openness that is Popper’s ideal. Moreover, this paper avers reasons why Popper should be comfortable with such a liberal-communitarian mix. The inter-subjectivity in his critical rationalism is a balance of an explicit individualism, and an implicit social element (Afisi, 2016a). Popper is indeed an author of (...) such a balance. For a society to be truly open requires the careful recognition and protection of individual freedom. However, the extent to which individuals are free to perform actions that they desire without external constraints, and the level of their individuality in relation to others when performing such actions, remain a contentious issue between liberals and more communitarian thinkers. Popper’s critical rationalism provides the necessary impetus to this contention through his view of freedom that I contend can best be viewed as carefully balanced, a view which combines individuality with a social element that upholds community values necessary for openness of society. With this combination, Popper’s politics of liberalism provides an effective model of how a truly open society can be achieved. The values inherent to Popper’s liberalism including those concerning intellectual openness, individual freedom, mutual respect, measured self-respect, welfarism, humanitarianism, accountability, critical debates and feedback from the citizens, together concern the conditions for a society to be truly open. There are many competing thoughts as to what openness might be in Popper’s philosophy. The present study of Popper does not presume to address them all. The focus here is specifically on using Popper’s idea of critical rationalism to balance relations between liberal politics of individual rights and freedom, and communitarian politics of the common good, as it relates to situations about how socio-economic and political conditions in Africa societies should be structured. While I contend that Popper’s works in political philosophy focused centrally on Western political tradition, and not about Africa in its strict sense, significant lessons can be distilled from Popper that can offer suggestions on social reforms in Africa. This paper explores Popper’s project of the open society across the plurality and differences of societies, so that his liberal ideas of individual freedom are not undermined, and the progress of the communitarian idea of the common good, that Africa societies are built upon, is also well enhanced. Liberal individualism and community values inherent to communitarianism are both well accommodated within Popper’s critical rationalism. (shrink)

Considéré par d'aucuns comme l'un des plus grands philosophes des sciences du XXe siècle, par d'autres, tout simplement comme étant le plus grand, auteur prolixe, audacieux, attachant, captivant et philosophe polémiste, Karl Popper laisse une œuvre riche, composite et abondante. C'est, d'entrée de jeu, la mise au point que nous avons fait dans ce livre. Ensuite, nous avons présenté les deux versants, à notre sens, fondamentaux de cette œuvre monumentale, à savoir une épistémologie de la faille et de la précarité (...) (première partie) et une épistémologie de la lutte et du combat (deuxième partie) de cet essai. En un sens, notre but est de montrer le caractère subversif de la pensée de Popper, caractère qui en fait, à la fois, une épistémologie de la faille (faillibilisme), de la précarité (asymétrie entre confirmation et falsification des théories), de la lutte et du combat (luttes épistémologique, méthodologique et politique de Popper)"--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

A 120 anni dalla sua nascita, la filosofia politica di Popper continua a stimolare sia gli studiosi che per primi ne divulgarono le opere sia coloro che s'interrogano sull’attualità del suo insegnamento. Il mondo nel quale Popper ha concepito le sue opere era segnato dallo scontro ideologico, quello di oggi è attraversato da conflitti di natura diversa, riconducibili alle tensioni nelle società multiculturali. Se scegliere i valori della società aperta pare un obiettivo inderogabile, rimangono aperte le sfide della sua traduzione (...) in una realtà sociale complessa. Sfide che Armando editore è, ancora una volta, in linea con la sua storia, pronto a raccogliere e tradurre in studi e ricerche. (shrink)

La humanidad, como especie racional, trata de comprender y explicar el mundo a través de conocimientos y teorías de diversos tipos. Karl Raimund Popper, filósofo vienés, trabajó en la constitución de un mundo mejor por medio de la elaboración de concepciones sobre aquellos conocimientos y teorías que hicieran posible un acercamiento adecuado a la realidad. Nos referimos al tema del tradicionalismo y del historicismo que, junto con la dialéctica, crearon un sentido innovador para pensar el presente social. En este trabajo (...) abordaremos específicamente la crítica que hace Popper de la dialéctica, la cual confronta con su propia metodología de ensayo y error. (shrink)

The reception of Popper in Japan has not been a glorious history up to the present day. There have been numerous misunderstandings and distortions. It is important to record and discuss them in order to learn from them and to make use of his ideas in the Japanese intellectual climate. This is the purpose of the present paper. From the perspective of the reception history, we searched the reasons why Popper has been misunderstood in Japan (especially in four areas: philosophy, (...) economics, history, and political philosophy), and tried to identify some of the factors responsible for this misunderstanding. To this end, we applied the method of “situational analysis” to the Japanese peculiar intellectual situation after the so-called après guerres, rather than by using a chronological order. If the causes of misunderstandings and distortions in Japan can be clarified by means of a situational analysis, we can learn a great deal from this history and can use this knowledge to throw new light on the status of critical rationalism in Japan. (shrink)

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be (...) read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been. My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today. (shrink)

The reception and influence of Popper’s philosophy of science and his political philosophy in Latin America have depended heavily on the translation of his major works originally published in German and English. Thus, for example, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, which was originally published in 1959, was translated into Spanish in 1962 and into Portuguese only in 1974. Similarly, The Open Society and Its Enemies, originally published in 1945, was translated into Spanish twelve years later in 1957 and into Portuguese (...) in 1974. But apart from a discussion of the impact of the translations of his books, I also want to show that the political situation in some Latin American countries, for example, Chile, Cuba and Peru, has played a very important role in the introduction, reception and influence of Popper’s philosophy of science in general and his social and political thought in particular. Accordingly, the main purpose of this article is to examine the reception of Popper’s ideas in Latin America and give an account of his influence and legacy in some of the Latin American countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. (shrink)

After offering an overview of some of the main themes of Popper’s political thought, the paper argues that his account faces two problems relating to institutions. The first is that while Popper stresses the ‘rational unity of mankind’, and the potential for any of us to furnish criticisms of public policy, it is not clear what institutional means currently exist for this to enable this to take place. Second, Popper has stressed the conjectural character of even our best theories. However, (...) at any point, some theories will have fared better in the face of criticism than others, and they may give us important information about constraints on our actions. At the same time, as ordinary citizens we may not be in a good position to understand the theories in question, let alone appraise the state of the specialised discussion of them. There is, it is suggested, a case for thinking of ways to institutionally entrench such fallible theories, especially in the current setting in which social media play an important role. (shrink)

Our analysis of Popper’s philosophy of science focuses on his concepts of tradition and situational analysis. These concepts represent innovative Popperian contributions to a historical and hermeneutical turn in philosophy of science that most of his critics, especially Kuhn, fail to recognize. According to his historical view, Popper conceives sciences as a complex of traditions in continuous transformation and progress by means of rational discussion of theories. In order to grasp the rational progress of scientific traditions, Popper proposes an original (...) method that he calls “situational analysis”. This hermeneutical method seeks to understand the concepts, hypotheses, actions, practices, controversies and products that scientists made to solve problems in their specific historical contexts to improve the truth content of theories. In addition to his historical and hermeneutical turn, Popper also inquired about the social and political conditions for the progress of scientific traditions by means of intersubjective criticism of theories and conjectures. According to him, the rational discussion of ideas requires, as necessary conditions, plurality of ideas, intellectual humility, and freedom of thought and communication that can only exist in an open and democratic society. With these considerations, we may say that in addition to a historical and hermeneutical turn, Popper also contributed to a social and political turn in the philosophy of science. (shrink)

Since the emergence of modernity, and in response to its myriad aspects and potentials, which are constantly unfolding, countless reactions have kept emerging in almost all quarters of the globe. A large variety of anti-modern reactions, the common core of which is perhaps the idea that modernity, in one way or another, is illegitimate, stand out among these responses. According to some of these anti-modern responses, modernity has usurped the characteristics and features of religion, which has been the soul as (...) well as the main shaping force of the pre-modern era and has reproduced it in a corrupted form. Two German-speaking philosophers, Karl Popper and Hans Blumenberg, are among the intellectuals who have defended modernity against the onslaught of anti-modern tendencies. In this paper, I briefly, though critically, compare and contrast the approaches as well as some of the arguments of these two thinkers in defence of modernity. (shrink)

Rational discussion guides, but does not compel individual decisions, and the best process of inquiry and decision should vary with a person’s goals and situation. Sir Karl Popper noted that after a result of observation or experiment has been obtained by independent researchers, scientists agree to reject as false theories that are contradicted by accepted facts. Popper, though, wrongly assumed this consensus also applies to acceptance for purposes of research. In reality researchers develop competing theories about which evidence is currently (...) in conflict, and sometimes even refuting the theories in their current form. Further, Popper asserted that only negative arguments should be used in rational inquiry. In reality, productive inquiry involves also positive arguments, even in science. Positive considerations such as which basic theories are justified by the researcher’s preferred metaphysics, or what theories in applied science are justified by existing accepted basic theories, are also used productively. (shrink)

Notwithstanding Karl Popper’s deep admiration for ancient Greece and his affection for modern Greece, his work has been mostly viewed with caution by Greek scholars who, until relatively recently, often chose to either ignore or downplay it. This stance can be partially attributed to the novel approach of Popper’s critique to Plato which did not fare well with the foundational biases of modern Greek academic tradition and the prevailing intellectual inclinations of Greek scholars in the fields of the methodology of (...) science and political theory. Although this bias has begun to recede during the last decades, there remains a lot to be done to fully integrate Popper’s work into the Greek intellectual and social discourse. Nevertheless, the establishment of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Athens University, along with the efforts of academics and public intellectuals, particularly during the Greek financial crisis of the last decade, have played a pivotal role in generating a broader interest in critical rationalism and popularizing Popper’s ideas among a wider audience. This paper examines the evolution of the reception of Popper’s ideas in Greece, both in scholarly circles and in public life, from the time of publication of his seminal work “The Open Society and its Enemies” until today, highlighting the efforts to foster a more comprehensive understanding of his important contributions. (shrink)

This paper examines the liberal society that Popper lauds, that aims to be truly open, and discusses why another, more communitarian kind of society, particularly societies in Africa, may also reflect the quest for intellectual openness that is Popper’s ideal. Moreover, this paper avers reasons why Popper should be comfortable with such a liberal-communitarian mix. The inter-subjectivity in his critical rationalism is a balance of an explicit individualism, and an implicit social element (Afisi, 2016a). Popper is indeed an author of (...) such a balance. For a society to be truly open requires the careful recognition and protection of individual freedom. However, the extent to which individuals are free to perform actions that they desire without external constraints, and the level of their individuality in relation to others when performing such actions, remain a contentious issue between liberals and more communitarian thinkers. Popper’s critical rationalism provides the necessary impetus to this contention through his view of freedom that I contend can best be viewed as carefully balanced, a view which combines individuality with a social element that upholds community values necessary for openness of society. With this combination, Popper’s politics of liberalism provides an effective model of how a truly open society can be achieved. The values inherent to Popper’s liberalism including those concerning intellectual openness, individual freedom, mutual respect, measured self-respect, welfarism, humanitarianism, accountability, critical debates and feedback from the citizens, together concern the conditions for a society to be truly open. There are many competing thoughts as to what openness might be in Popper’s philosophy. The present study of Popper does not presume to address them all. The focus here is specifically on using Popper’s idea of critical rationalism to balance relations between liberal politics of individual rights and freedom, and communitarian politics of the common good, as it relates to situations about how socio-economic and political conditions in Africa societies should be structured. While I contend that Popper’s works in political philosophy focused centrally on Western political tradition, and not about Africa in its strict sense, significant lessons can be distilled from Popper that can offer suggestions on social reforms in Africa. This paper explores Popper’s project of the open society across the plurality and differences of societies, so that his liberal ideas of individual freedom are not undermined, and the progress of the communitarian idea of the common good, that Africa societies are built upon, is also well enhanced. Liberal individualism and community values inherent to communitarianism are both well accommodated within Popper’s critical rationalism. (shrink)

Carnap and Popper proposed ways scientists have to work. According to Carnap, they should look for confirmations for hypotheses. In Popper‘s view, what is important is to try to falsify hypotheses. Cognitive science seems to prove that, in real scientific research, both activities play a role. First, people attempt to confirm hypotheses. Second, they seek examples refuting those hypotheses. This paper is intended to show that the theory of mental models can describe the mental processes involved in both tasks: confirmation (...) and falsification. It addresses the mental possibilities individuals consider in both cases. In addition, the paper reveals that, in accordance with both Carnap‘s framework and Popper‘s approach, both mental activities are related to conditional reasoning. (shrink)

Karl Popper (1902-1994) est mort avant d’avoir terminé cette collection d’articles. Quelques uns (comme « Back to the Presocratics » (1958), publié dans Conjectures et Réfutations, ou la note de The Open Society (1945) – huit pages – consacrée aux corps premiers du Timée) sont relativement connus. Certains, tel celui consacré à « la lumière que la Lune peut jeter sur les deux voies de Parménide » (1992) le sont moins. D’autres enfin sont inédits, comme la « réhabilitation » de (...) Xénophane (ch.... (shrink)

Karl Raimund Popper was born in Vienna on 18 July 1902. He enrolled at the University of Vienna in 1918 and at the Pedagogic Institute in Vienna in 1925. He was a secondary schoolteacher for several years from 1930 on. His Logik der Forschung was published in 1934. It was brought to Einstein's attention by Frieda Busch, wife of the founder of the Busch Quartet, at the suggestion of her son‐in‐law, the pianist Rudolf Serkin, who was a good friend of (...) Popper's. Einstein told Popper that, purified of certain errors he had noted, the book “will be really splendid”; a considerable correspondence ensued between them. The book also brought Popper invitations to England, where he spent much of 1935–6, meeting Susan Stebbing, Ayer, Berlin, Russell, Ryle, Schrödinger, Woodger, and, at the London School of Economics, Hayek and Robbins. In 1937 he took up a lectureship in philosophy at Canterbury University College, in Christchurch, New Zealand. There he wrote “The poverty of historicism” (1944–5) and The Open Society and its Enemies (1945); he called the latter his “war work.” Both these works contain interesting ideas about the special problems and methods of the social sciences. Later works, including an autobiography (1976), are listed at the end of the chapter. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Three Core Concepts of Critical Rationalism Stratagems Opposed to Criticism A Bias Towards Confirmation Can Students Be Taught to Falsify? Should Students Be Taught to Falsify? Conclusion References.

In this paper, I set out to critically review the impact of Popperian falsificationism and Lakatosian methodology of scientific research programmes [MSRP] on economic methodology and philosophy of economics. The central thesis I maintain is that neither Popper's falsificationism nor Lakatos' MSRP offers [philosophy of] economics a proper condition for the reception or rejection of economic theories.

O presente artigo destina-se a apresentar as críticas de Popper à solução humeana e a versão neopositivista para o problema da indução. Para tanto, o seu principal objetivo é desenvolver o princípio do racionalismo crítico contra qualquer princípio indutivista na ciência. Nesse nível, ele enfatiza a inexistência do princípio de indução e, por conseguinte, de uma lógica indutiva nos contextos de descoberta e justificação de hipóteses científicas. E mais, reafirmando a sua posição frente ao problema da indução, indica-nos que o (...) procedimento adotado para descobrir hipóteses não pode ser caracterizado racionalmente e que o procedimento que se adota para a justificação de hipóteses pode ser analisado sem o uso da lógica indutiva. (shrink)