popper to send

8/7/2019 popper to send

1/23

University of El Salvador

Western Multidisciplinary Campus

Foreign Language Department

Research Methods

Karl PopperKarl Popper ss

Theory of KnowledgeTheory of Knowledge

Teacher: Licda. Delurdy de Sermeo

Students: Escalante Herrera, Ana Yanira

Hernndez Rivas, Noem Elizabeth

Due to:

September 04, 2008


2/23


3/23

ABSTRACT : Karl Popper, an important philosopher of the twentiethcentury, describes the Theory of Knowledge stating that there are 3 worlds in

which human knowledge can be subdivided. World 1 is the universe of real

objects, World 2 is the world of subjective thoughts and World 3 is the world of

objective content. Besides that, Popper states that the only way of getting real

knowledge is the trial and error elimination method. Popper says that the

Inductive approach is invalid since it is based on observations. Therefore, the

correct form to get an appropriate conclusion about something is by testing

hypotheses over and over. Finally, Poppers theory includes Demarcation,

which basically consists on problem solving using ad hoc and auxiliary

theories.

INTRODUCTIONKarl Raymond Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest

philosophers of science of the twentieth century. He was also a social and

political philosopher of great prestige, and a critical rationalist, and a defender

of the Open Society. However, through this work, we will present Poppers

Theory of Knowledge or as he calls it The Growth of Human Knowledge.Poppers conception is presented as Three Worlds of Knowledge. He points

out that there is a great difference between knowledge seen in the Subjective

sense and knowledge seen in the Objective sense, which he favors. Popper

maintains that World 1 is the physical universe, World 2 is made of mind and

conscience states, and finally World 3 is composed of the products and

results of these states. Popper calls it the World of Objective contents of

thought, especially scientific thoughts and artifacts. He stated that this

conception of knowledge differs from Platos and Hegels conceptions and

theories, but his theory is very similar to Bolzanos interpretation of world 3.

When referring to human knowledge, Popper differs from many other

philosophers who consider the word knowledge subjectively. In contrast, he

has an objective sense of the world knowledge. Popper strongly believes that

to think about knowledge produced by men can be compared to the honey

produced by bees. Why does he make such a comparison? He answers: the

honey is made by bees, stored by bees; and the individual bee which

1


4/23

consumes honey will not in general, consume only a bit it has produced itself:

honey is also consumed by the drones which have not produced any at all. It

is also interesting to know that, in order to keep up its power to produce more

honey, each working bee has to consume honey, some of it usually produced

by other bees. (Objective Knowledge. 1972. publ. claredon press) In contrast,

Popper states that we, human, are not only producers but consumers of

theories; and we have to consume other peoples theories, and perhaps they

are only theories if we are to go on producing. However, in here, to consume

means to digest, and it means more. Our consumption of theories whether

those created by other people or by ourselves, also means criticizing them,

changing them, and often demolishing them in order to replace them by better

ones. Different from Plato, Popper is not an idealist but a realist.

Popper also stresses importance of autonomy in his world 3 (created

by humans), but at the same time, it has some influence over human. Popper

defines science and simplifies it through this schema:

P1 TT EE P2

This rational schema is summarized in this statement: critical error

elimination on the scientific level proceeds by way of a conscious search of

contradictions. Popper maintains that knowledge does not begin observing

phenomena but looking for problems (P1), trying to solve them by testing

tentative theories (TT), and leading the scientists to error elimination (EE)

resulting in new problems which will become ad hoc and auxiliary theories. In

here, Popper strongly criticizes the discovering of world 3, Plato and other philosophers such as Hegel and Hume for their essentialists and nominalists

view of knowledge.

Popper also thinks that Induction is not scientific at all since it depends

on observations in order to infer. He says that we only solve problems through

experimentation and proving of false hypotheses in order to better the former

hypotheses until it is trust worthy and becomes a real solution part of his world

three. At last Popper holds that the problem of demarcation deals again with

2


5/23

the testing of hypotheses which cannot be accepted at once as true since

they must go through a process of classifying scientific and non-scientific

theories. In order to do this, Popper uses two types of theories: ad hoc and

auxiliary theories. These two types will need time to prove that the falsification

of theories lead to objective scientific knowledge.

3


6/23

The Theory of KnowledgeEven though Karl Poppers theory is not as well known as Platos or

Aristotles theory of knowledge, his idea of an objective conception of

knowledge is not rejected as a great contribution. Instead, he is highlyrecognized as a twentieth century rationalist. His form of perceiving human

growth of knowledge is simplified in a theory of falsification of hypotheses. For

him, the validity and reliability of theories depends on false asseverations until

the scientist reaches a conclusion that as he states can pass the fire proof by

being tested and falsified over and over. Poppers theory of knowledge is

subdivided in three main aspects: his view of objective and subjective

knowledge in his three worlds, the problem of induction, and the problem of

demarcation which make of his simple schema a real source of the growth of

knowledge.

Objective Knowledge vs. Subjective Knowledge

1. Poppers Three Worlds of Knowledge

Karl popper defines the growth of human knowledge by using three

worlds . He states that the way he defines worlds does not have the

connotation of worlds or universe as scientists and philosophers of the era

define them. Popper points out that many philosophers hold that knowledge is

subjective. However, he defines human knowledge as the three different

worlds in which it can be subdivided. This is the core of Poppers conception

of human knowledge. World one is the physical universe. It consists of the

actual truth and reality that we try to represent, such as energy, physics, and

chemistry. This is the world of real objects and the physic states. World two is

the world of our subjective personal perceptions, experiences, and cognition.

It is what we think about the world as we try to map, represent, and anticipate

our hypothesis in order to maintain our existence in an every changing place.

Personal knowledge and memory form this world, which are based on self-

regulation, cognition, consciousness, dispositions, and processes. Finally,

world three is the result of the objective abstract products of the human mind.

It consists of such artifacts as books, tools, theories, models, libraries,

computers, and networks. This includes especially the scientific and poetic

4


7/23

thoughts as well as the artifacts (Miller, 1997) Popper summarizes these in

the following diagram:

(Taken from http://www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.html )

Even though these worlds are different, they are related as follows:

World 1 drives and enables world 2 to exist, while world 2 tries to control

and regulate world 1.

World 2 produces world 3, while world 3 helps in the recall and the

training/education/development/learning of world 2.

World 3 describes and predicts world 1, while world 1 is the inferred

logic of world 3.

These three worlds described by Popper do not contradict each

other but establish a relationship in order to get to objective knowledge.

In addition, since world 2 is composed by people, we can use our

senses to cut across boundaries and observe and test the exchanges

and relationships of worlds 1 and 2.Thus, knowledge surrounds us

(world 1), becomes a part of us (world 2), and is then stored in historical

contents and contexts by us (world 3 artifacts). In this framework there

are two different senses of knowledge or thought:

5
http://www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.htmlhttp://www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.html


8/23

Knowledge in the subjective sense, consisting of a state of mind

with a disposition to behave or to react (cognition).

Knowledge in an objective sense, consisting of the expression of

problems, theories, and arguments.

While the first one is personal, the second one is totally independent of

anybody's claim to know. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Popper in his book Poppers Selected Works states that epistemology

is the theory of the scientific knowledge, and he defines this through the

following three theses:

The first one states that the traditional epistemology has studied

knowledge and thought in the subjective sense: in the sense of the common

usage of phrases such as I know, or Im thinking. For him the theory of

scientific knowledge belongs to the World 3, the world of the objective

theories, objective problems and objective arguments. So it is wrong the way

traditional epistemology uses the phrase I know. Poppers first thesis

encompasses two meanings for the words thought and knowledge, 1)

knowledge or thought in the subjective case consists of a state of mind or

conscience or the disposition to behave or react and 2) knowledge or thought

in the objective sense encompasses problems, theories, and arguments as

such. Knowledge in this sense is knowledge without a subject.

His second thesis states that epistemology is the study of scientific

problems, problematic situations and the study of scientific conjectures, (that

is for him another form to refer to hypothesis or scientific theories) the criticalarguments and the role evidence plays in the arguments. Hence, that is

evidence of the scientific periodic publications and of books, experiments, and

his evaluation in the scientific argumentation. In short, this means that the

study of the world three is definitely autonomous.

At last, his last thesis says that an objective epistemology that study

the world three can help us to understand better the world of the scientific

conscience, world two, especially about the scientists subjective processes of thought; however, we cannot do the opposite, try to understand world two by

6


9/23

using world three. So Popper theories can be summarized as follows: The first

is that the world three is a natural product of humans comparable to a spider

web. The second one says that world three is autonomous even though we

are directly over it, and it has an influence on us. It is autonomous; even

though it is a product of the human life and it has a strong effect on us, and

inhabitants of worlds one and two. The third one says that through this

interaction between us and the world three we get to objective knowledge.

(Miller, 1997)

a. The Objectiveness and Autonomy of World Three

Most theories and books, and potential arguments from the world three

emerge as a non-intentional product of the books and arguments. In addition,

it can also be considered a product of human language. Popper says that

human language is a non-intentional product of actions aimed at other

purposes. Popper states that a great part of world three is constructed non-

intentionally, but it is a sub product of events. According to Popper, that is,

perhaps, the reason why human language and institutions have been created

by men. They were created without planning. It is possible that they did not

even need them; however, as time passed by, they became necessary. Whilesome goals are achieved, a lot of new universes of possibilities, new goals

and new problems emerge. (Miller, 1997)

The idea of autonomy is vital in this world three. Even though the world

number three is a human product, a human creation, it creates, at the same

time, its own autonomy. Sometimes, this human product leads us to make

conjectures which we cannot control, and this exactly makes these products

difficult to figure out. Nevertheless, this autonomy is only partial: newproblems lead us to new creations and constructions, and in this way, new

objects are added in world three. As a result, each of these steps will create

new non-intentional facts, unexpected new problems and very often new

refutations. This is the most important part of Poppers contribution to the

growth of human knowledge, and this can be simplified as follows:

P1 TT EE P2

7


10/23

Here P stands for problem ; TT stands for tentative theory and EE

stands for (attempted) error elimination especially by way of critical

discussion. Poppers tetradic schema is an attempt to show that the result of

criticism, or of error elimination, applied to a tentative theory, is as a rule the

emergence of a new problem; or indeed of several new problems. Generally,

these new problems are not intentionally human creations; instead, they are

generated in an autonomous way through new relationships which we cannot

stop from emerging with every new action. Popper suggests proposing many

theories as attempts to solve some given problems, and then examine each of

our tentative solutions. As a result, we find that each gives rise to new

problems, and we may follow up those which promise the most novel and

most interesting new problem. If the new problem turns out to be merely the

old P in disguise, then, we say that our new theory only manages to shift the

problem a little. In some cases, we may take this as a decisive objection to

the tentative theory, TT. (Miller, 1997)

2. Pluralism and Emergence in History

a. Platos World Three vs. Poppers World Three

In his book Poppers Selected Works , Popper acknowledges Plato as

the discoverer of world three; however, he strongly criticizes Platos world

three which was made of eternal, unchanging conceptions or notions. Unlike

Platos world three, Poppers world three is created and changed by men. It is

not only made of true theories but also made of false ones, and especially

open problems, conjectures, and refutations. Plato also believed that the

world three, the World of Forms and Ideas will give us definite explanations.

Plato considered the objects of the world 3 to be something like stars or

constellations: something to admire, to sense, but something out of our minds

reach. The citizens of Platos world became concepts, essences, or even

the nature of things but not theories, arguments, or problems. This idea

adopted by many philosophers even at present time, is expressed as a

problem in the following diagram:

8


11/23

IDEAS

that is

DESIGNATIONS or TERMS

or CONCEPTS

STATEMENTS or PROPOSITIONS

or THEORIESmay be formulated in

WORDS ASSERTIONS

which may be

MEANINGFUL TRUE

and their

MEANING TRUTH

May be reduced, by way of DEFINITIONS DERIVATIONS

to that of

UNDEFINED CONCEPTS PRIMITIVE PROPOSITIONS

The attempt to establish (rather than reduce) by these means their

MEANING TRUTH

leads to an infinite regress

Popper holds that concepts are partly means to formulate theories andpartly means to summarize them. In any case, however, its meaning is mainly

instrumental, and it can always be substituted by other concepts. (Miller,

1997, pp. 77-80) On the other hand, Hegels ideas were dialectically self-

changing conceptions or notions. His conception of world three comprises

two aspects: the Objective Spirit (includes the artistic creation) and the

Absolute Spirit (encompasses philosophy.) These two consist of human

productions. He states that the individuals are instruments of the line of thought of the period and its work, its substantial occupation is prepared and

signed independently of them. On the other hand, Popper schema functions

through error elimination in the scientific level by criticizing and based on the

search of the truth. (Miller, 1997) This critic consists on the search of

contradictions and the elimination: the resulting difficulty of this elimination

constitutes the new problem (P2). In this way, elimination leads us to the

objective development of our knowledge and its objective meaning. Finally,this leads to the objective verisimilitude; consequently, we come to the

9


12/23

absolute truth. (Miller, 1997) Hegel does not see our world as a search of

contradictions with the aim of eliminating them because he thinks that the

contradictions are as good as the theoretical systems, no contradictory (or

better): these provide us with the mechanism through which the spirit impels

itself.(Objective Knowledge, 1972) Hence, the rational critic does not play

any role in the Hegelian authomaticism nor plays any role in the human

creativity. Differently of the above, Popper world three does not have any

similitude with the human conscience. Even though its first citizens are

human products of conscience, they are completely different from any

subjective sense. Differently, Popper finds that the most important are not

conceptions or notions at all, but that they correspond not to words but to

statements or propositions. In opposition to Plato and Hegel, Popper

considers tentative theories about the world-that is, hypotheses together with

their logical consequences-as the most important citizens of the world of

ideas; he does not think (as Plato did) that their strangely non-temporal

character makes them eternal and thereby more real than things that are

generated and are subject to change, and to decay.

([email protected] ) On the contrary, a thing that can change

and perish should for this very reason be accepted as prima facie real; and

even an illusion is, qua illusion, a real illusion. (Miller, 1997)

The Problem of Induction

1. Description of the problem of Induction

Popper describes the problem of induction according to what Hume

states about. The problem of Induction emerges of: 1) Humes discovery (also

clearly expressed by Born) that is impossible to justify a law through

observation or experimentations because it goes beyond experimentation. 2)

The fact that science proposes and utilizes laws everywhere and all the

time (as Hume, Born is impressed by the few material, it means, the few

observed cases in which the law can be founded). To these, we add point 3)

the principle of empiricism, which states that, in science just the observation

and the experimentation can justify the acceptation or the refusal of the

10
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


13/23

scientific statements, including the laws and theories. Among these three

principles there is an apparent contradiction; this contradiction constitutes the

logical problem of Induction. However, those principles do not contradict

among themselves. This can be noted in the moment that the acceptance by

science of a law or a theory is tentative only; this means that all the laws and

theories are conjectures or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law

or a theory on the basis of new evidences, without necessarily discarding our

old evidence that lead us to accept it originally. (Miller, 1997, pp.114, 115)

The principle 3 of the empiricism can be preserved since the fate of a theory,

its acceptation, or its denial is decided by the observation and the

experimentationthrough tests results. As a theory passes through intensive

tests, it can be accepted, or if not, it can be rejected. But it is never inferred, in

any sense, from the empirical evidence. Induction does not exist, neither

psychological nor logical. From the empiric evidence, just the falsifiability of a

theory can be inferred, and that inference is purely deductive. Popper states

following Humes, that all deductive inferences are logically invalid even

inductively invalid. (Miller, 1997, pp.116) He says that there are many

evidences or examples of inferences deductively valid, but there are not

examples of inferences inductively valid.

Popper agrees with Humes opinion saying that induction is invalid and

never justified. Popper disagrees with Humes opinions (and almost all

philosophers opinions) that induction is a fact, and always a necessity. The

belief that we use induction is just wrong; it is similar to an optic illusion.

Popper states that what we really use is a method of trials and error

elimination; even if this method is confused with induction, when we examine

it well, its logical structure totally differs from the logical structure of induction.

Also, it is a method that does not make emerge any of the difficulties related

to the problem of induction. (Miller, 1997, pp. 116,117) Popper says and

firmly states that the scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural and

hypothetical. Poppers central thesis is: as we completely realize the

implications of the conjectural character of human knowledge, the problem of

induction changes of aspect completely: there is no need of being disturbed

by the negative results of Hume because there is no need of attributing to the

11


14/23

human knowledge a validity derived from repetitive observations. We can

explain our achievements in terms of the trial and error elimination methods.

(Miller, 1997, pp. 117)

Popper also talks about the theory of commonsense, something thathe really appreciates. He thinks that every philosophy should start from

commonsense points of view and its critic exam. Two parts of commonsense

view of the world are taken into account by Popper. The first one refers to the

realism of common sense. By realism, he means a real world, real people,

real animals and plants and real stars. The other part of commonsense view

of the world is the theory of knowledge of common sense. In here, the

problem is how we get our knowledge about the world. The solution of common senses is as follows: open the eyes and ears. Our senses are the

main if not the only sources of our knowledge about the world. Philosophies

of commonsense, the realism of commonsense and the theory of knowledge

of commonsense, were supported by Hume; however, he discovered as

Berkeley had previously done it, that there is a clash between them. (Miller,

1997) For Hume and Berkeley, authentic knowledge consisted on beliefs

supported by enough reasons. Hume as other philosophers such as Berkeley

and Leibniz believed that if a person does not have reasons to hold a belief,

then that person has enough reason to stop thinking that way. For Berkley

and Hume, real knowledge meant essentially beliefs based on sounded

reasons, but these made them believed that knowledge consisted of

subjective feelings. So unlike Popper for these philosophers, the real world of

commonsense does not really exist. According to Hume, even humans do not

really exist. The only existing things are sensations, impressions, and mental

images. This belief is known as idealism. Idealism was a strong refutation of

the realism of common sense. In fact, Hume observed the contradiction

between the commonsense philosophies: realism and the theory of

knowledge based on commonsense. (Miller, 1997, pp. 118,119)

a. Humes Logical Problem

The two problems based on induction are: the logical problem and the

psychological problem. The logical problem is as follows: Are we rationallyjustified to reason based on repetitive instances on what we had previous

12


15/23

experiences, to go to instances on what we have not had any experience?

Humes answer was: No. We are not justified, no matter the number of

repetitive instances. Instances of which we have had experience do not allow

us to reason or argue neither about the probability of instances of which we

have had no experience, nor about the certainty of such instances. (Miller,

1997, pp. 120,121)

b. The Psychological Problems

Hume stated the psychological problem as follows: why do all people

have expectations, trust them, and strongly believe in them? The answer of

Hume to this was: because of costume or habit. Hume says that humans are

accustomed to repetition; it is something we can hardly survive without.According to Hume our scientific knowledge is only a habit or an irrational

custom. (Miller, 1997, pp. 121)

c. Poppers Solution of the Logical Problem

Poppers solution to the logical problem of induction was that we may

have preferences for certain of the competing conjectures; that is, for those

which are highly informative and which so far have stood up to eliminative

criticism. These preferred conjectures are the result of selection, of the

struggle for survival of the hypotheses under the strain of criticism, which is

artificially intensified selection pressure.

Popper reformulates Humes logical problem of Induction as follows:

Are we rationally justified in reasoning from instances or from non-instances

of which we have had experience to find out the truth or falsity of the

corresponding laws or to instances of which we have had no experience?

(Miller, 1997, pp. 122-130)

C. The Problem of Demarcation

1. Description of the problem of demarcation

As Popper represents it, the central problem in the philosophy of science

is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he

terms non-science. Under these headings he ranks, among others, logic,

metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology. Popper is

13


16/23

unusual among contemporary philosophers, for he accepts the validity of the

Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that

induction is never actually used by the scientist. However, he does not accept

that this is not necessary associated with Humes skepticism. In addition, he

argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of pure

observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely

misguided: all observation is selective and theory-laden there are no pure

or theory-free observations. In this way, he destabilizes the traditional view

that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its

inductive methodology. On the contrary, Popper holds that there is no unique

methodology specific to science. Popper believes that science, like virtually

every other human, and indeed organic, activity, consists largely of problem-

solving.

Popper, then, refutes induction, and rejects the view that it is the

characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, and substitutes

this idea for falsifiability. According to Popper, it is easy to corroborate any

theory through evidence. This corroboration should count scientifically only if

it is the positive result of a genuinely risky prediction, which might

conceivably have been false. Then, what does Popper mean by corroborate

theories? For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a

conceivable event. Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically

an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies

the whole theory. In a critical sense, Popper's theory of demarcation is

based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between

verification and falsification : it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a

universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a

single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.

In a word, an exception, far from proving a rule, conclusively refutes it.

(http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/)

Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive , in the

sense that it forbids, by implication, particular events or occurrences. As such

it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper

stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood

14


17/23

the most rigorous testing, for a long a period of time. This hypothesis has then

been verified, so that such a theory has received a high measure of

corroboration and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory

until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a

better theory.

Popper has always drawn a clear distinction between the logic of

falsifiability and its applied methodology . The logic of his theory is utterly

simple in this example: if a single ferrous metal is unaffected by a magnetic

field it cannot be the case that all ferrous metals are affected by magnetic

fields. Logically speaking, a scientific law is conclusively falsifiable although it

is not conclusively verifiable. Methodologically, however, the situation is much

more complex: no observation is free from the possibility of error

consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it

appeared to be.

Thus, while using falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation for science,

Popper explicitly allows for the fact that in practice a single conflicting or

counter-instance is never sufficient methodologically to falsify a theory.

Moreover, he believes that scientific theories are often retained even though

much of the available evidence conflicts with them, or is anomalous with

respect to them. Scientific theories may, and do, arise genetically in many

different ways, and the way in which a particular scientist formulates a

particular theory may be of biographical interest, but it is of no consequence

as far as the philosophy of science is concerned. Popper holds that there is

neither a unique way in particular, nor a single method such as induction,

which functions as the route to scientific theory. To this respect, Einstein

personally endorsed with his affirmation that there is no logical path leading

to (the highly universal laws of science). They can only be reached by

intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of

experience. In Poppers view science starts with problems rather than with

observations it is, indeed, precisely what scientists make observations for,

to solve problems. Scientists observations are selectively designed to test the

15


18/23

extent to which a given theory functions as a satisfactory solution to a given

problem.

On this criterion of demarcation physics, chemistry, and (non-

introspective) psychology, among others, are sciences, psychoanalysis is a

pre-science (i.e., it undoubtedly contains useful and informative truths, but

until such time as psychoanalytical theories can be formulated in such a

manner as to be falsifiable, they will not attain the status of scientific theories),

and astrology and phrenology are pseudo-sciences. In short, formally, then,

Popper's theory of demarcation may be articulated as follows: where a basic

statement is to be understood as a particular observation-report, then we may

say that a theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic

statements into the following two non-empty sub-classes: (a) the class of all

those basic statements with which it is inconsistent, or which it prohibits

this is the class of its potential falsifiers (i.e., those statements which, if true,

falsify the whole theory), and (b) the class of those basic statements with

which it is consistent, or which it permits (i.e., those statements which, if true,

corroborate it, or support it. (Miller, 1997)

a. Ad Hoc and Auxiliary Theories

For Popper the problem of demarcation can be approached using ad

hoc and auxiliary theories. For example, if one of our theories turns to be

false, then the scientific must change the theory using either of them. An ad

hoc theory Popper points out is a theory proposed to explain determined

problem , but this problem in contrast can not be proved independently.

However, this ad hoc hypothesis can become testifiable at some time. They

are, in fact, auxiliary hypotheses which in some time could not be proved.

Therefore, the creation of an ad hoc hypothesis can lead us to drop it out or

create a new one and so on. In summary, the use of either auxiliary or ad hoc

theories can lead the scientist to a process of problem solving trough the

testing, refutation, and of course, error elimination.

16


19/23

CONCLUSION

After searching different sources about Karl Poppers theory of human

knowledge, we can infer that the growth of human knowledge has been

defined from different points of view. We can say that because Popper has

taken somebody elses works or theories in order to either improve his own or

criticize others theories. It is interesting to note that Poppers theory of

17


20/23

knowledge is, to some extent, radical because he presents this theory very

differently from what other philosophers have said about the conceptions of

the world or universe. Poppers conception of the world is mostly based on

deduction. For Popper, knowledge is only acquired through the emergence of

problems, falsification of theories and error elimination. He strongly believes

that knowledge can not be placed in his world 2, but that it is the result

presented in his world 3. For him, this world is the tangible proof of human

creation and capability to solve problems. He considers knowledge as

something subject to change, something that transcends from the subjective

(world 2) to the objective (world three).Moreover, he thinks that induction is

not an appropriate scientific approach because it is based on observations.

Instead, he states that trials and error elimination is the appropriate and most

reliable way to prove a theory. Popper also makes a distinction between what

is scientific and non scientific by using tentative theories that at some point in

time become testable and result of not only true statements but also of false

hypothesis. This is, for Popper, the only way to immunize a theory and to

patentates this belief as true. Finally, his theory is really interesting because it

impels the human mind as something creative and complex. However, we can

not restate the effectiveness and the value of the inductive approach or any

other approach that can help us to prove a theory because there is not a

unique method to acquire knowledge. So even though Poppers theory of

knowledge comprises very good input, it also needs to better as, he himself

says, it must be subject to change through time.

REFERENCES

18


21/23

Miller, D. (1997). Popper Escritos Selectos. Mexico: Fondo de Culturas

Econmicas.

Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1963

[email protected]

http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

http:// www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.htm/

http:// encyclopedia. kids. net. au/page/ka/Karl Popper

http://en.citizendium.org/ wiki/ Karl Popper

Objective Knowledge (1972) publ. Claredon Press

19
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://en.citizendium.org/http://en.citizendium.org/mailto:[email protected]://en.citizendium.org/


22/23

GLOSSARY

Rationalist: someone whose actions and decisions are based on

reason rather than emotions or beliefs

Artifacts: an object that is made by a person, such as a tool or a

decoration, especially one that is of historical interest

Drones: male bees

Idealist: someone who believes that ideals can be achieved, often

when this does not seem likely to others

Autonomy : the right of a group of people to govern itself, or to

organize its own activities

schema: a drawing that represents an idea or theory and makes

it easier to understand

demarcation: a disagreement between trade unions (= organizations

of workers) about what types of work should be done by the members

of each of them

connotation: a feeling or idea that is suggested by a particular word

although it is not necessarily a part of the word's meaning, or

something suggested by an object or situation

boundaries: a real or imagined line that marks the edge or limit of

something, the limit of a subject or principle

epistemology: the part of philosophy that is about the study of how we

know things

conjectures: is a conclusion that is based on information that is not

certain or complete. (FORMAL)

verisimilitude: is the quality of seeming to be true or real. (FORMAL)

refutations: A refutation of an argument, accusation, or theory is

something that proves it is wrong or untrue. (FORMAL)

statements: something that you say or write which gives information in

a formal or definite way.

20


23/23

Empiricism: is the belief that people should rely on practical

experience and experiments, rather than on theories as, a basis for

knowledge. (FORMAL)

Trials: A trial is a formal meeting in a law court, at which a judge andjury listen to evidence and decide whether a person is guilty of a crime.

Strain: If strain is put on an organization or system, it has to do more

than it is able to do. To strain something means to make it do more

than it is able to do.

Laden: If someone or something is laden with a lot of heavy things,

they are holding or carrying them. (LITERARY)

Ferrous: means containing or relating to iron. Anomalous: Something that is anomalous is different from what is

usual or expected. (FORMAL)

Psychoanalysis: is the treatment of someone who has mental

problems by asking them about their feelings and their past in order to

try to discover what may be causing their condition.

Phrenology: is the study of the size and shape of people's heads in

the belief that you can find out about their characters and abilities fromthis.

popper to send

Documents

Transcript of popper to send