I. C. Jarvie interprets Popper's philosophy of science as a theory of the institution of science, explains how the social aspect of his theory developed, and suggests that an updated version of Popper's social theory should be used to study both scientific and nonscientific societies today. Although (1) Jarvie's description of the emergence of Popper's theory suffers because he takes no account Popper's research conducted before Logik der Forschung (1994), (2) his portrayal of Popper's framework overlooks important problems, and (3) (...) his program is by no means new, his essay throws light on the relation between Popper's philosophy of science, his social theory, and his social studies of science. (shrink)

Raimo Tuomola has complained that my critical review of his The Philosophy of Sociality is superficial, that I have not presented, even that I have misrepresented his work, and that I have neglected its virtues, which others have praised. I reject his complaint about the content of my review as unwarranted in an open society, as he demands that I take his work on his own terms. I defend my view of the place of his work in the analytic tradition, (...) my analysis of his work as essentialist and not explanatory, my argument that his analytic method is weak, and my appraisal that the framework he offers for current social scientific research is not needed and not very useful. (shrink)

I. C. Jarvie interprets Popper's philosophy of science as a theory of the institution of science, explains how the social aspect of his theory developed, and suggests that an updated version of Popper's social theory should be used to study both scientific and nonscientific societies today. Although Jarvie's description of the emergence of Popper's theory suffers because he takes no account Popper's research conducted before Logik der Forschung, his portrayal of Popper's framework overlooks important problems, and his program is by (...) no means new, his essay throws light on the relation between Popper's philosophy of science, his social theory, and his social studies of science. (shrink)

The primary aim of this book is to show that evolutionary theory is incapable of solving an incredibly large number of problems in an incredibly broad range of areas. It has ostensibly a second aim as well, which is to suggest that new developments and especially those in chaos theory open possibilities for new types of explanations. These explanations should go beyond the boundaries set by the research program of evolutionary theory, which, the author is convinced, will never be able (...) to solve the many and varied problems raised by the development of life from its chemical beginnings to contemporary man. The text is primarily devoted, however, to demonstrating the limitations of evolutionary theory. (shrink)

This small book—six essays in 89 pages of text—is well worth reading. The essays are the proceedings of a conference on Popper’s philosophy which was held in Warsaw in March of 1995. As the title promises, they offer some insights into the significance of Popper’s thought (see, especially, the essays by Joseph Agassi and Ernest Gellner). They also contain perceptive critical comments and suggestions as to how we may use some of Popper’s results to move forward. In the first section, (...) entitled “Karl Popper’s Three Worlds,” John Watkins and Adam Grobler discuss Popper’s three-world theory in relation to evolutionary theory and the theory of rationality, respectively. Essays by Joseph Agassi and Stefan Amsterdamski are presented under the subtitle, “The Scientific Method as Ethics.” Agassi discusses the regrettable lack of honesty in the public relations of science. He sees this lack as a product of a widespread refusal to abandon idealized views of science, which allow one to abandon one’s autonomy. The significance of Popper’s approach is that it calls us to treat science more realistically and individuals to accept responsibility and autonomy: these cannot be delegated to science. The editor’s own contribution contends that knowledge is unavoidably conditioned by historical and sociological circumstances and that in his later philosophy Popper mistakenly sought to avoid this consequence. He somewhat misleadingly calls his view relativist in an attempt to distinguish it from Popper’s even while stressing his debt to him. The last two essays appear under the subtitle “The Open Society and Its Prospects.” Ernest Gellner discusses some of the illiberal traits in Popper’s personality which lead to defects in his, according to Gellner, extremely important defense of liberalism, and which can be improved by a more sociological perspective. (shrink)

Review of Alan Musgrave Common Sense, Science and Scepticism and David Miller Critical Rationalism.

The paper is a response to some critical points and omissions in John Wettersten’s review of my recent book The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View (Oxford University Press, 2007). I point out in this short paper that the reviewer has not discussed the most central notions in the book relating to its "we-mode" approach, i.e. collective acceptance, group reasons, the collectivity condition, collective commitment and their role in accounting for e.g. cooperation, social institutions, cultural evolution. (...) I also clarify the ontological commitments of my broadly naturalistic approach and show e.g. that we-mode social groups do exist as social systems but not a full-blown collective agents, although it is conceptually and instrumentally central to view them as collective agents. Also questions of we-mode versus I-mode explanations of collective action are considered in the paper. (shrink)

Theories of explanation in the social sciences vacillate between holism and individualism. This book contends that this has been a consequence of theories of rationality which assume that rationality requires coherent theories to be shown to be true. It claims that traditional explanations place unrealistic demands on individuals and institutions.

Critical rationalists cannot reconcile their falibilism with the demand of logic for universality. Popper tried, but failed, to achieve universality in logic without proof. Attempts to find a limited approach to logic as ‘logics of’ have failed to find a coherent critical rationalist alternative. Critical rationalists take Tarski’s logic to be the best of logic today. But Tarski renders logic as close to justification, and thereby universality, as possible. A fallibilist version of Tarskian logic can yield a critical rationalist alternative: (...) It provides rules for solving problems in linguistic contexts, but also discovers mistakes by discovering errors in logical inference. (shrink)

The problem of how to handle interesting but ignored thinkers of the past is discussed through an analysis of the case of Ludwik Fleck. Fleck was totally ignored in the ?30s and declared an important thinker in the 70s and ?80s. In the first case fashion ignored him and in the second it praised him. The praise has been as poor as the silence was unjust. We may do such thinkers more justice if we recognize that intellectual society is fickle, (...) that we cannot make amends in many cases, but that we can do such thinkers justice by treating them critically ? even if this means explaining away any impact they might have had. If we wish to be autonomous and independent of fashion, we must abandon efforts to use the making of amends the occasion for making intellectual society seem fairer than it is. (shrink)

William Whewell's views on the philosophy of science were dismissed as incoherent and eclectic when he introduced them in the middle of the 19th century, though some leading contemporaries engaged and even incorporated them. When his ideas were resurrected a century later, they were dismissed as poor induction rather than original thinking. Wettersten (philosophy of science, Mannheim U., Germany) explores why Whewell's impact continues to be felt, and why almost all theorists have had to come to terms with his (...) ideas. He also addresses larger concerns such as whether traditions can be assessed rationally, and whether there is a logic to how they change or can be changed. Six commentaries follow his treatise, and he responds to them. Annotation : 2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:New Insights on Young PopperJohn R. WetterstenSeven essays that Popper wrote from 1925 to 1932–33 show Popper's transition from a fresh student of pedagogy into a serious philosopher of science ten years later. His first essay was published in 1925, and in 1934–35 he presented a revolutionary philosophy. These essays led first to Die beiden Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie (written between 1930 and 1933 but first published in 1979) and (...) culminated in Logik der Forschung.1. Students as IndividualsIn his first published essay Popper argued that each student should be treated as an individual as much as possible.1 It is evident that Popper held this attitude throughout his life, but this essay plays no interesting role in his intellectual development.2. HeimatIn his second essay Popper developed an idea that was important not only for his pedagogy, but also for his psychology and his theory of the open society: because humans tend quite naturally to be dogmatic, they have to learn to overcome dogmatism in order to be rational.2 Following a perspective [End Page 603] heavily indebted to Eduard Burger,3 Karl Bühler,4 and Charlotte Bühler,5 Popper proposed that all aspects of learning begin with the beliefs and attitudes that one learns at "home." Teachers, Popper says, should not ignore the cultural background of their students. This background derives from their home, from their parents or village, and so forth. Teachers should accept the students' dogmatic acceptance of the views and attitudes of home as a necessary, even useful stage in any child's development. The teacher's central task is to help children move away from this dogmatic stage to broader perspectives. How to do this well, he says, poses a, if not the, central pedagogical problem. He discusses the movement from home to aesthetics, to art, to ethics, to law, to the theory of knowledge and science, and to culture. In each case he finds something in the heritage of home that each child possesses, which may be used as a starting point to expand the child's horizons.The problem of how teachers can sympathetically help children move away from the views of their home to broader perspectives is severe, Popper thought, due to the innate need of children to think dogmatically. When children learn the culture of their home they are given certainties that they cling to. As individuals mature, dogmatic thinking has to be overcome: a crucial task for teachers is to help children to set aside their innate dogmatic attitude to engage in critical thinking.At this time Popper was groping for a good philosophical approach. He said that the concept of "Heimat" had to be analyzed because, even though it was at the center of pedagogical concerns, it was a confused concept. This analytical method was quickly abandoned. It is only a historical curiosity that shows how far he had to go in order to develop a new philosophical method. Yet his use of it did bring him to adopt, or he used it to defend, views that he held throughout his life.3. Gewohnheit und Gesetzerlebnis in der ErziehungIn the same year (1927), in Gewohnheit und Gesetzerlebnis in der Erziehung, Popper turned to the task of providing a psychological explanation of the child's need for dogmatism. This third essay was submitted to the Pedagogic Institute, but only became available after Popper's death. Popper was ambivalent about it. When I visited him at his home in Penn in 1973 or 1974, I asked him for a copy. It was then listed in his bibliography, but there were no copies at the University of Vienna. His wife began to say she knew where it was, but he interrupted her before her sentence was completed. But he did not throw it away. The reason for his reluctance to show scholars his essay is [End Page 604] now clear: the essay endorses a philosophy of science—Hans Vaihinger's—with a strong inductivist component, even though its methodology is deductivist. He tried to apply this method in his own psychological investigation of dogmatism in children.Dogmatism was, he thought, a psychological... (shrink)

Foreword I. Critical rationalism is a genuinely new philosophical perspective. It is not, however, one systematic view. The development of it by Popper and ...

Poppers Studien der Methodologie und der politischen Konsequenzen der Sozialwissenschaften begannen innerhalb des Rahmens der Österreichischen Schule der Ökonomie, deren Begründer Carl Menger war. Am Anfang von Poppers Forschung in den Sozialwissenschaften war seine Deutung des Inhalts dieser Schule vor allem von Friedrich von Hayek bestimmt. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studien werden fast überall als eine erfolgreiche Vereinigung von Hayeks Ansichten über Ökonomie mit Poppers fallibilistischer Methodologie betrachtet. Popper und Hayek haben diese Deutung verteidigt. Sie ist aber falsch: Poppers Theorie des (...) unvollkommenen Wissens und die daraus entstandene Theorie von ‚piecemeal social engineering‘ widersprechen Hayeks Idealisierung der freien Markwirtschaft. (shrink)

Title: The Nature of Love, Volume 1: Plato to LutherPublisher: University of Chicago PressISBN: 0226760952Author: Irving SingerTitle: The Nature of Love, Volume 2: Courtly and RomanticPublisher: University of Chicago PressISBN: 0262512734Author: Irving Singer.

Heutzutage sind die Theorien über ad-hoc-Hypothesen problematisch. Sie sind entweder zu streng und verbieten zu viel, oder sie sind relativ leer. Um eine Erklärung dafür zu entwickeln, werden die Wurzeln der wissenschaftstheoretischen Probleme der ad-hoc-Hypothesen dargestellt. Die in diesem Jahrhundert vorgeschlagenen Theorien über ihre Anwendung werden kritisiert. Ihre Unzulänglichkeit wird auf ihre allzu hohen positivistischen Ansprüche zurückgeführt: Keine Theorie über ad-hoc-Hypothesen kann sie unabhängig von Analysen ihrer Kontexte identifizieren, und keine solche Theorie kann als einziger Maßstab für die wissenschaftlichen Theorien (...) dienen. Die neuen Versuche müssen dem Zusammenhang zwischen verschiedenen Maßstäben für die wissenschaftlichen Theorien einerseits und der erhofften Vermeidung von ad-hoc-Hypothesen andererseits Rechnung tragen. Die neuen Theorien der Problemauswahl bieten gute Möglichkeiten, dieses Ziel zu erreichen, wenn der Entdeckung von neuen Problemen Priorität gegeben wird. (shrink)