Customer Reviews

The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Besides clearly explaining Popper's well-known positions on the distinction between scientific and non-scientific propositions, testing possibilities for falsifications of theories or piecemeal adaptations of social systems, this book constitutes the burial of the Frankfurter Schule (Adorno, Habermas, Horkheimer).
By the way, non-scientific propositions are not meaningless (e.g., music, literature, myths).
Science probably began with myths, superstitions and prejudices.

K.R. Popper rejects the myth of the framework, `the doctrine of the impossibility of mutual understanding between different cultures, generations or historical periods, even within science, even within physics.'
Critical reasoning and open discussions (`without killing any authors or burning books') should always be allowed and be the bacon of all our theories about and solutions of practical and theoretical problems. `Man has achieved the possibility of being critical of his own tentative trials, of his own theories.'

Frankfurter Schule
Popper torpedoes the Critical Theory of the Frankfurter Schule as follows: `Horkheimer rejects, without argument and in defiance of historical facts, the possibility of reforming our so-called `social system'. This amounts to saying: let the present generations suffer and perish - for all we can do is to expose the ugliness of the world we live in, and to heap insults on our oppressors, the bourgeoisie.'
He also lambastes the supreme influence of Hegelianism on German philosophy (`a tradition destructive of intelligence and critical thought'). He sides here with Marx who remarked that `in its mystifying form dialectics became the ruling German fashion.'

This book is a must read for all those interested in philosophy and, of course, for all 'critical' Popper fans.

Karl Popper (1902--1994) established a formidable reputation as a philosopher of science. His most famous principle is that a scientific theory must be capable of falsification on the basis of empirical observation. One cannot ever prove a theory is true (induction is defeasible), but a single aberrant observation can prove a theory false, Popper claimed. The world is full of people who deny Popper's insight for one reason or another. For instance, a logician might say, if theory p is falsified by observation o, then theory (not p) is verified by the single observation o. A defender of Popper might say that if p is a theory, then (not p) is not a theory at all, because theories must be expressed by universal quantification, or covering laws, or what have you. Similarly, a historian of science might claim that a single observation never led scientists to chuck a prized theory unless there was available and alternative theory that explained everything the old theory did, plus the new observation.

All this is very interesting to the philosopher, but for with limited tolerance for hair-splitting, Popper holds quite a different significance. Popper was the avowed and indefatigable enemy of Freudian psychology, Hegelian/Marxian philosophy and political theory, and other highly emotive and value-laden ideologies that appealed to True Believers but had no serious roots in the scientific method. If he were alive today, he would be launching his attacks on post-modernism, creationism, and other such drivel that has taken away the rationality of so many smart people in recent years. So, I Love Popper! I'm sure you will love Popper, too, unless you are among decorticate folk who believe that some ideas are just too precious to be subjected to empirical testing.

"I may be wrong and you may be right," says Popper, "and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth." (p. xii) Actually, if you really understand this assertion and can defend it, you don't really need this book. This says it all.

Popper's falsification approach is actually very well defended in the first essay in this little book of essays. Popper argues that science has a Darwinian dynamic. A scientific theory can reproduce itself from mind to mind and generation to generation, but anomalies in the theory reduce its "fitness" and random mutations in the theory (theoretical paradigm shifts and emendations) sometimes produce a less anomalous offspring which then replaces the earlier theory, and hence is akin to biological adaptation. It follows that scientific progress requires both close attention to the facts and the willingness of scientists to entertain "heretical" views.

"One of the components of modern irrationalism is relativism (the doctrine that truth is relative to our intellectual background, which is supposed to determine somehow the framework within which we are able to think)" says Popper in the second essay (p. 33). Relativism will always be attractive to many people because it affirms a radical tolerance of the views of others. However, in science relativism is a poison, because it leads people to leave off struggling over truth, and hence it renders scientific progress impossible. Popper fully understands that different intellectual frameworks make discursive interaction difficult, just as he understands that there are few bald "facts" that exist independent from a theoretical framework to interpret these facts. However, he notes by observing the history of science that inter-framework discourse and struggle has been constant and fruitful. "I am very ready to admit that a discussion among participants who do not share a common framework may be difficult [but]... a discussion between vastly different frameworks can be extremely fruitful." (p. 35)

Among the topics covered in these essays is Popper's perspective on the famous "positivism debate" between such rationalists as Karl Popper and the Frankfurt School of critical philosophy, which included Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Jürgen Habermas in the 1960's. Popper actually takes a "sociology of knowledge" approach to the critical theorists, observing that the Germans public is impressed by big words and complex-sounding arguments, even if they are trivial in content or make no sense at all. Popper treats Adorno as a peddler of platitudes and Horkheimer as a minor cultural critic. Moreover, he argues that the critical school's treatment of culture is arrogant and elitist, prejudice rather than insight. He says the same of Habermas, although I think Habermas has developed quite important ideas in recent decades. I think Popper's assessment of "critical theory" is right on the mark, and it is developed in this book in a highly cogent and entertaining manner. By the way, the idea that Popper is a positivist is quite ludicrous---consider, for instance, his strong critique of Francis Bacon's scientific methodology, which is also sketched in one of the book's essays.

Excellent, stimulating essays with some surprising and appealing ideas. Also some repetition and some dull essays. A very good book indeed. Popper was a maverick; his ideas will enrich your thinking even if you don't agree with them altogether.

This is the last book by the great philosopher Karl R. Popper (1902-1944) ,it saw light after a short time of his death ,and it is still printed till this very day.
this book represents the image Popper embraced as a cultural message and his fertile ,ever-innovating philosophy which had many aspects touching our life as intellectuals.
Under the title (Myth of the framework) Karl explores any possibility of a discussion between civilisations ,and he explains that the union or even clash between them is vital and necessary for history's wheel.

Its is very true ,alas this essential interaction can be tragical if it was led by the hands of those of blind faiths and prejudistic beliefs .... if it was presented withing sealed ( frameworks) ... and the critical spirit is there no more ...

Popper - with trowels of critique - bashes every embodiment of bigoted frameworks ,even if it was disguised under the veil of postmodernism , and he dedicates this last breath of his to one final battle in determining factors of development in science ,knowledge ,and humanity.

One of the things I marvel at from time to time is the nearly complete lack of interest in the status of science in the world. I am, of course, referring to the vast majority of my fellow citizens. I doubt that the politicians share this agnosticism as to science's place, purpose, nature, technique and subject matter, the uses of science are too well known for that; but the subject does not seem to cause much wonder amongst the people. The modern world, after all, is a technological construct, and one would have thought that a consideration of, for instance, the epistemological underpinnings of science or the status of its' theories, would be de rigueur in a world whose very existence is based on the importance of science for the technological creation, maintenance and perpetuation of that world. No? Turn off the world's fuel and electricity supply for a month and see how many survive.

Indeed, in speaking with people one finds an unlikely, perhaps I should say alarming, tendency to consider science (and its' theories) with a quasi religious respect that simply is not due the subject. A tendency to speak as if science were in the business of discovering Platonic Truths, perhaps even revealing Nature Herself, which, of course, would obviously leave no room for criticism. One educated person once told me criticism was for politics and art; science, however, is objective. - That while literary criticism is endless (and often pointless), science discovers natural laws. But he speaks as if the great strides in science haven't been made by overthrowing earlier scientific theories. Think of the twentieth centuries replacement of Newton by Einstein, of classical mechanics by Quantum Mechanics.

This process of the replacement of one scientific 'truth' by another is ongoing and possibly endless. For all we know, at any point in history, we may be in the process of overturning yet another scientific theory. Allow me an anecdotal case in point. A few years back some observations, impossible from earth based telescopes, were made by the Hubble space telescope which showed a distant galaxy going in exactly the opposite direction that we would have expected it to go. That prediction was made on the basis of an interpretation of the the Big Bang Theory and the observable matter large enough to gravitationally effect the galaxy in question. (The Big Bang Theory basically predicts that all galaxies will be moving away from all other galaxies unless some locally large structures, nebulae or galaxies, have enough gravitational attraction to pull it in another direction). When pressed for an explanation of the discrepancy between the theoretically based prediction and the recent observation, the poor scientist that was interpreting this observation said that their must be a completely unknown type of unobservable matter attracting this galaxy in this unanticipated direction. In other words, save the theory at any cost, even if it requires a miracle!

As we can see, a combination of observation and theory led to the prediction, but observation alone isn't enough to overturn it. What this scientist, and some of my fellow citizens, have forgotten is that a theory is neither a fact nor a truth, it is only a working hypothesis. They treat theories as facts, and observable facts as details that either confirm present theory, or anomalies that sooner or later will be explained, or perhaps I should say, explained away. The philosopher that best explains, in my opinion, how we should treat theory is Karl Popper. His great insight is the importance of falsification to the theoretical process, and the counter-intuitive insight of the relative unimportance of 'true' theories.

Let me explain. Or, even better, let him explain. He says, in The Myth of The Framework, "All scientific knowledge is hypothetical or conjectural." Note this: It is not a Platonic Truth, a fact of nature, or a revelation of God. Therefore we can doubt a scientific theory without falling into grievous sin. He goes on to say, "The growth of knowledge, and especially scientific knowledge, consists in learning from our mistakes." If theories weren't falsifiable we would still believe the world flat. He tells us, "This fact should encourage you to try to refute your own [and others theories]." Of course, I should add that he doesn't mean that any objection to a scientific theory is good. He is defending objections and refutations that are scientific - flat-worlders and luddites will not find an ally here.

What of the vaunted scientific objectivity we have heard so much of? Again, Popper: "It is not the objectivity or the detachment of the individual scientist but of science itself [...] which makes for objectivity." What Popper is telling us is that it is the scientific method, not individual scientists or currently accepted theories, in which sciences great claims to objectivity reside. And he means that methodic objectivity is not mere experimentation, it is testing to falsify, that is to fail, theories.

The only way to discover the unknown is by seeking to overturn the known. That is why Popper says, "Authoritarianism in science [is] linked with [...] proving or verifying theories. [While] the critical approach is [...] trying to refute, or to falsify its conjectures." In other words, science is a critical, and therefore interminable project; it is an endless task. It is how we interact with our changing world. There is no piety, utterly no piety at all, in Popper's view of science; and this is the scientific attitude that I think we all should strive to emulate.