KARL POPPER Karl Popper (1902-1995) was born in Vienna, Austria. He enrolled in the ni!

ersit" o# Vienna in 191$, where he studied ph"si%s, &athe&ati%s, and philosoph". he be%a&e %on!in%ed that &ethodolo'" o# s%ien%e is e(%lusi!el" a &atter o# lo'i% and ob)e%ti!e *nowled'e instead o# ps"%holo'" personall" a%+uainted with ,udol# -arnap and other &e&bers o# the Vienna -ir%le .n 19/9 he was &ade pro#essor o# lo'i% and s%ienti#i% &ethod at the 0ondon 1%hool. INFLUENCES: 2instein was the &ost i&portant in#luen%e on his thin*in',throu'h 2instein3s published wor*s. .n 1919 interested in 4ar(3s theor" o# histor", 5reud3s theor" o# ps"%hoanal"sis, and Al#red Adler3s 6indi!idual ps"%holo'". . DISAVOWALS dissatis#ied with the !iews o# 4ar(, 5reud and Adler, be%ause the persons who a%%epted and ad!o%ated these theories were stron'l" i&pressed b" the theories3 purported e(planator" power POPPERS PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE CENTRAL FEATURE/FOCUS His falsificationist c it! ion" R!#!ction of t$! nat% alistic t$!sis of t$! s!&antics of lan'%a'! R!(!finition of t$! conc!)t of t$!o *.

CONCEPT OF THEORY CLAI+S: T$!o i!s a ! con#!ct% !s c !at!( ,* t$! $%&an i&a'ination T$!o i!s (o not o i'inat! ,* an* nat% al ) oc!ss s%c$ as in(%ction" T$! constit%!nt &!anin's a ! not (!t! &in!( ,* an* nat% al ) oc!ss s%c$ as )! c!)tionT$! t$!o i!s a ! not )! &an!ntl* !sta,lis$!( ,* .! ification o confi &ation T$! &!anin's a ! not )! &an!ntl* !sta,lis$!( ,* .i t%! of an* fo%n(ational ontolo'*T$!o i!s a ! o%tin!l* falsifi!( as a )a t of t$! ) o' !ss of sci!nc!N!/ t$!o * off! s a $i'$! (!' !! of info &ation cont!nt (%! to class!s of )ot!ntial falsifi! s T$! n!/ t$!o * is ) !f! a,l! if it s% .i.!s t$! t!stCONCEPT OF CRUCIAL E0PERI+ENTS 7he" are &ethodolo'i%all" i&portant de%ision pro%edures in the pro'ress o# s%ien%e. 2##e%ti!e #or de%idin' between theories.0eads toward 'reater in#or&ation %ontent and !erisi&ilitude.

CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC E0PLANATION It is call!( t$! $*)ot$!tico1(!(%cti.! t$!sis To 'i.! a ca%sal !2)lanation "to (!(%c! a stat!&!nt t$at (!sc i,!s t$! !.!nt" %sin' as ) !&is!s of t$! (!(%ction on! o &o ! %ni.! sal la/s to'!t$! /it$ c! tain sin'%la stat!&!nts call!( initial con(itions . Ca%sal !2)lanation a ! s!t of stat!&!nts ,* /$ic$ on! (!sc i,!s a stat! of affai s to ,! !2)lain!(" 34 explicandum45" ,* (!(%ction f o& a s!t of !2)lanato * stat!&!nts" 34explicans-56 T$! explicans &%st lo'icall* !ntail t$! explicandum" an( it &%st not ,! 7no/n to ,! fals!ca%sal !2)lanation n!!( not (!sc i,! c! tain t$in's" (iff! s f o& t$! Positi.ist .i!/ 4ca%sal !2)lanation4 is (!fin!( in t! &s of t$! f%nction t$at t$!o i!s )! fo & in !ali8in' t$! ai& of sci!nc! E2)lanation is of t$! 7no/n ,* t$! %n7no/n in t$! s!ns! of con#!ct% al" inst!a( of ,* t$! 7no/n in t$! s!ns! of t$! )! &an!ntl* !sta,lis$!( fo%n(ationCONCLUSION: CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC E0PLANATION the e&piri%al test out%o&e %an ne!er establish or 6!eri#"6 a s%ienti#i% theor", but %an onl" re#ute or 6#alsi#"6 the theor". .t is not a sci!ntific !2)lanation if it is not !&)i icall* t!sta,l!8hat &a*es a theor" s%ienti#i% is its power to e(%lude the o%%urren%e o# so&e possible e!ents, and he %alls the sin'ular state&ents that des%ribe these e(%luded e!ents 6potential #alsi#iers.9 DE9REES OF E0PLANATORY POWER 7he &o ! t$at a t$!o * fo ,i(s o !2cl%(!s and there#ore the la '! t$! class of )ot!ntial falsifi! s, then the &o ! t$! t$!o * t!lls %s a,o%t t$! /o l(POTENTIAL FALSIFIERS Popper %alls in#or&ation %ontent 6e&piri%al %ontent6, and he %alls the #alsi#iabilit" o# the theor" its 6testabilit".9 All o# these ter&s re#er to a lo'i%al relation between a theor" or a h"pothesis and its %lass o# potential #alsi#iers. 7he a&ount o# info &ation cont!nt is in.! s!l* !lat!( to t$! (!' !! of ) o,a,ilit* that &a" be asso%iated with a h"pothesis. AI+ OF SCIENCE two di##erent t"pes o# state&ents o# the ai& o# s%ien%e &a" be distin'uished, #irstl" the lo'i%al state&ent and then the later institutional state&ent. :btain theories that are easil" #alsi#iable, be%ause the theories ha!e a lar'e in#or&ation %ontent, a lar'e %lass o# potential #alsi#iers. 1ear%h #or interestin' truth that has a hi'h de'ree o# e(planator" power or e&piri %al in#or&ation %ontent. CONCEPT OF DISCOVERY He e(%lude %onsideration o# the topi% o# s%ienti#i% dis%o!er" #ro& philosoph" o# s%ien%e e(%lusi!el" a ps"%holo'i%al and there#ore sub)e%ti!e &atter.

8hen he re)e%ts indu%ti!e lo'i%, he there#ore re)e%ts all lo'i% #ro& the dis%o!er" pro%ess. He later &odi#ied this !iew, when he e(plained what he would ad&it to be possible with an 6indu%tion &a%hine.9 RE:ECTION OF POSITIVIS+ Popper;s philosoph" was o%%asioned b" 2instein3s de!elop&ent o# relati!it" theor", a &ilestone episode in the his tor" o# s%ien%e that Popper too* to be paradi'&ati% o# s%ienti#i% pro'ress. 8hile -arnap and other Positi!ists %ontinued their e##orts to establish theoreti%al s%ien%e in%ludin' 2instein3s theor", on #ir& ontolo'i%al #oundations, Popper re)e%ted the naturalisti% theor" o# &eanin' that supposedl" supplies su%h a #oundation, and a%%epted the re!ision o# s%ienti#i% e(planation as a &atter o# %ourse. , Popper also re#rained #ro& usin' their #a!orite lo'i%, the ,ussellian s"&boli% lo'i%. 7his lo'i% is %alled a truth-#un%tional lo'i%, be%ause the truth !alue o# an" %o&pound state&ent, su%h as a %onditional <&aterial i&pli%ation9, %an be deter&ined b" re#eren%e to the truth !alues o# its %o&ponent ele&entar" state&ents .n %ontrast the nontruth-#un%tional a##ir&s the e(isten%e o# a dependen%" %onne%tion between the truth !alues o# the ante%edent and %onse+uent %lauses, su%h that the truth o# the %o&pound state&ent is not deter&ined b" the truth !alues o# the %o&ponent %lauses #or &ost %o&binations o# truth !alues. 7he truth tables #or truth-#un%tional %onditional and the %orrespondin' nontruth#un%tional %onditional lo'i%al #or&s are %ontrasted as #ollows, where 7=97rue9 and 5=95alse9> 7ruth-5un%tional ?ontruth-5un%tional 7ruth 7able A 1. 7 2. A. /. @ 7 7 5 5 5 7 5 A@ 7 5 7 7 A @

7ruth 7able

.# A, then @. 7 7 7 5 5 ?ot 5alsi#ied 5 7 5 5alsi#ied .n!alid 7est .n!alid 7est

RATIONALITY AND 9ROWTH AND PRO9RESS OF SCIENCE He ad!an%es a 6&etas%ienti#i%6 %riterion o# pro'ress, that enables the s%ientist and &ethodolo'ist to *now in ad!an%e o# an" e&piri%al test, whether or not a new theor" would be an i&pro!e&ent o!er e(istin' theories, were the new theor" able to pass %ru%ial tests, in whi%h its per#or&an%e is %o&pared to older e(istin' alternati!es. He %alls this c it! ion t$! 4)ot!ntial satisfacto in!ss4 of t$! t$!o *, and it is &!as% !( ,* t$! (!' !! o a&o%nt of info &ation cont!nt. 7he t$!o * t$at t!lls %s &o ! is ) !f! a,l! to on! t$at t!lls %s l!ss" an( t$! t$!o * t$at t!lls %s &o ! is also on! /$ic$ is &ost falsifia,l!7he ai& of sci!nc! is $i'$ !&)i ical info &ation cont!nt as /!ll as s%cc!ssf%l )! fo &anc! in t!sts- .t is the c it! ion of $i'$ info &ation cont!nt t$at &a7!s t$! ' o/t$ of sci!nc! ational- 7he ai& of sci!nc! is not $i'$ ) o,a,ilit*" an( t$! ationalit* of sci!nc! (o!s not consist of const %ctin' (!(%cti.! a2io&atic s*st!&s" sinc! t$! ! is littl! &! it in fo &ali8in' a t$!o * ,!*on( t$! !;%i !&!nts fo t!stin' itT$! ' o/t$ of sci!nc! (o!s not consist of t$! acc%&%lation of o,s! .ations ,%t t$! !)!at!( o.! t$ o/ of sci!ntific t$!o i!s an( t$!i !)lac!&!nt ,* &o ! satisfacto * t$!o i!sIt is contin%o%s" ,!ca%s! t$!o i!s" /$ic$ a ! ) o)os!( sol%tions" '!n! at!s n!/ ) o,l!&sSci!nc! sta ts f o& ) o,l!&s" not o,s! .ations" alt$o%'$ %n!2)!ct!( o,s! .ations 'i.! is! to n!/ ) o,l!&s-

Sci!nc! ) o' !ssin' f o& ol( to n!/ ) o,l!&s" to n!/ ) o,l!&s $a.in' inc !as!( (!)t$ as it ) o' !ss!s f o& ol( t$!o i!s to n!/ t$!o i!s $a.in' inc !as!( info &ation cont!ntP o' !ss as a)) oac$in' &o ! an( &o ! clos!l* to t$! t %t$" /$! ! t %t$ is %n(! stoo( as a co !s)on(!nc! /it$ t$! facts an( as a !'%lati.! i(!a- :%st as t$! ! a ! (!' !!s of info &ation cont!nt" so too t$! ! a ! (!' !!s of a)) oac$ to t$! t %t$ t$at $! calls 4.! isi&ilit%(!-6 CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION t/o c it! ia fo t$! ationalit* of sci!ntific !.ol%tions C it! ion of (iscontin%it*> the n!/ t$!o * &%st conflict /it$ t$! ol( on! in the sense that it l!a(s to conflictin' !s%ltsPopper sa"s that in this sense sci!ntific ) o' !ss is al/a*s !.ol%tiona * C it! ion of contin%it*: the new theor" &ust be able to !2)lain f%ll* t$! s%cc!ss of its ) !(!c!sso in the sense that either there are appli%ations in whi%h the old theor" &ust appear to be a 'ood appro(i&ation to the results o# the new theor", or there are %ases where the n!/ t$!o * *i!l(s (iff! !nt an( ,!tt! !s%lts t$an t$! ol( on!Sci!ntific !.ol%tions a ! ational be%ause unli*e ideolo'i%al re!olutions, whi%h are so%iolo'i%al, t$! fo &! cannot si&)l* , !a7 /it$ t a(itionRE:ECTION OF PSYCHOLO9IS+ AND INDUCTION 7he de!elop&ent o# Popper3s own philosoph" o# s%ien%e ,!'an /it$ t$! o,#!cti.! of (!&a catin' !&)i ical sci!nc! an( )s!%(osci!nc! (e.'. Astrolo'", 4ar(is&, 5reudianis&, and Adlerian ps"%holo'"). His sol%tion to t$! ) o,l!& of (!&a cation is t$! c it! ion of !&)i ical falsifia,ilit* , whi%h he also uses to (!&a cat! !&)i ical sci!nc! f o& &!ta)$*sics" and he %ontrasts this %riterion with the %riterion o# &eanin'#ulness that -arnap and other 0o'i%al Positi!ists used #or distin'uishin' s%ien%e #ro& &etaph"si%s. Po))! &aintains t$at t$! ! is no o,s! .ation /it$o%t t$!o *" an( t$at t$! o,s! .ation t! &s occ% in' in o,s! .ation lan'%a'! a ! 4t$!o * i&) !'nat!( Po))! !#!cts ,ot$ ,!$a.io is& an( )s*c$olo'is&" an( &aintains t$at t$! cont!nt of t$o%'$t" t$! &!anin's of /o (s" t$! s!&antics of lan'%a'!" a ! not (!t! &in!( !it$! ,* t$! nat% al la/s of t$! )$*sical /o l( o ,* t$! nat% al la/s of )s*c$olo'*. T$! /o l( of o,#!cti.! 7no/l!('!" /$ic$ is 'o.! n!( ,* t$! la/s of lo'ic" is a t$i ( /o l( t$at is a%tono&o%s f o& t$! /o l( of o,#!cti.! )$*sical nat% ! an( also f o& t$! /o l( of s%,#!cti.! )s*c$olo'* THREE WORLDS T$! o,#!cts of /o l( < a ! int! s%,#!cti.!l* t!sta,l!- Hen%e there are the three s!)a at! /o l(s /$ic$ cannot ,! !(%c!( to on! anot$! : Wo l( = is the world o# o,#!cti.! )$*sical nat% !" Wo l( > is the s%,#!cti.! /o l( of )s*c$olo'ical !2)! i!nc! , Wo l( < is the o,#!cti.! /o l( of $%&an a tifacts o c !ations incl%(in' 7no/l!('!. Popper e&phasiBes that while the three worlds intera%t throu'h world 2, ne!ertheless the world o# ob)e%ti!e *nowled'e is autono&ous o# the world o# sub)e%ti!e ps"%holo'i%al e(perien%e in%ludin' per%eptual e(perien%es. Ad!o%ates o# ps"%holo'is& and the naturalisti% theor" o# the se&anti%s o# lan'ua'e fail to !co'ni8! t$! a%tono&* of /o l( < f o& t$! ot$! t/o /o l(sCONCEPT OF PRO?A?ILITY AND CORRO?ORATION 7here#ore as the in#or&ation %ontent o# a theor" in%reases, the asso%iated probabilit" &ust de%rease. Popper &aintains that the whole proble& o# the probabilit" o# h"potheses as !iewed b" -arnap is &is%on%ei!ed, be%ause on -arnap3s idea o# de'ree o#

%on#ir&ation, s%ientists should pre#er state&ents ha!in' hi'her asso%iated probabilities, while on Popper3s !iew s%ientists should pre#er theories with hi'her in#or&ation %ontent

A s%ienti#i% theor" that has 'reater in#or&ation %ontent (be%ause it is &ore uni!ersal, or be%ause it is &ore a%%urate than an alternati!e theor") also has a hi'her de'ree o# %orroboration, i# when it is tested it is not #alsi#ied.

A theor" would not be said to ha!e been %orroborated until it had been tested and #ound to ha!e no #alsi#"in' test out%o&eC

A state&ent &a" be #alsi#iable to a hi'h de'ree "et it &a" be onl" sli'htl" %orroborated or it &a" be #alsi#ied.

7he &easures #or %orroboration, C(h,e), and probabilit", P(h,e), #or h"pothesis h and #or basi% state&ent e o# e!iden%e des%ribin' a test out%o&e, are related b" %ertain e+uations. 7he in!erse relation between the &easures o# %orroboration and probabilit" is related as #ollows>

ON CRUCIAL E0PERI+ENTS 7he %entral issue in whi%h Popper represents the %onser!ati!e position is the proble& o# the de%idabilit" o# s%ienti#i% %riti%is& in%ludin' &ost notabl" the de%idabilit" o# %ru%ial e(peri&ents. 7he ori'in o# the proble& is the thesis shared b" both Popper and the Pra'&atists, and also enun%iated b" 2instein, that theor" deter&ines what is obser!ed. 7o the Pra'&atists this thesis i&plies that the des%ription o# the obser!ed results #ro& an e(peri&ental test %annot be understood in the sa&e wa" b" di##erent s%ientists who &aintain alternati!e theories in an e(peri&ental test that is %ru%ial in the sense that it purportedl" de%ides between the alter nati!e theories. .# theor" deter&ines what is obser!ed, then s%ientists &aintainin' di##erent theories do not obser!e the sa&e thin', and the obser!ed out%o&e #ro& the %ru%ial e(peri&ent %annot de%ide between the alternati!e theories. 7o Popper on the other hand, 2ddin'tonDs 1919 e%lipse e(peri&ent, whi%h is widel" re'arded as the histori% %ru%ial e(peri&ent de%idin' on behal# o# 2instein3s theor" o# relati!it", de&onstrates %on%lusi!el" that %ru%ial e(peri&ents are de%isi!e. Popper &aintained that #alsi#i%ation is ne!er #inall" and per&anentl" %on%lusi!e, be%ause the sin'ular basi% state&ents that are potential #alsi#iers &a" be re!ised, thus o%%asionin' the re!ision o# a #alsi#"in' test out%o&e. 7he e&piri%al test &a" be said to be %on%lu si!e onl" to the e(tent that interested s%ientists a'ree to a%%ept %ertain basi% state&ents. Popper states that in so&e %ases it has ta*en s%ientists a lon' ti&e be#ore a #alsi#i%ation is a%%epted, and that it is usuall" not a%%epted until a #alsi#ied theor" is repla%ed b" the proposal o# a new and &ore ade+uate theor". Popper &aintains that %ru%ial e(peri&ents %an be used to de%ide between alternati!e theories, as o%%urs when a new theor" in proposed as a superior alternati!e to an older theor". 7he new theor" is tested b" appl"in' it to %ases #or whi%h it "ields results that are di##erent #ro& what is e(pe%ted #ro& the older theor". He sa"s that su%h %ases are 6%ru%ial6 in the @a%onian sense that the" indi%ate the %rossroads between two or &ore theories, but not in the @a%onian sense that an" theor" %an be established. Popper then turns to Euhe&3s thesis that in e!er" test it is not onl" the theor" under in!esti'ation that is tested, but also the whole s"ste& o# assu&ptions &ade b" the theor", su%h that it is ne!er possible to be %ertain whi%h o# the assu&ptions is re#uted b" the test. Popper states that i# the s%ientists %onsider ea%h o# the two theories in the %ru%ial test to'ether with all the ba%*'round *nowled'e assu&ed b" both theories, then the s%ientists de%ide between the two s"ste&s, whi%h di##er onl" o!er the two alternati!e theories in the test. Popper adds that s%ientists do not assert the re#utation onl" o# one o# the theories b" the test, but rather the theor" to'ether with the ba%*'round assu&ptions. @" this he does not &ean that e!er" state&ent in the theor" and its assu&ed ba%*'round is re#uted, but onl" that there is at least one state&ent that is erroneous, and that it &a" be in either the theor" or the assu&ed %o&&on ba%*'round. 7hus he also sa"s that in #uture tests parts o# the ba%*'round *nowled'e &a" be re)e%ted as responsible #or the #alsi#i%ation o# the theor" in the %urrent %ru%ial test. 5urther&ore Popper3s %on%ept o# theor" lan'ua'e &a" be %ontrasted with that o# the Positi!ists, who belie!ed that it is possible to de#ine theor" in ter&s o# its se&anti%al properties b" &eans o# their distin%tion between theoreti%al and obser !ation ter&sC Popper re)e%ts this distin%tion. Popper replies that this wholisti% !iew o# tests, e!en i# it were true, would not %reate a serious proble& #or the #alsi#i%ationist philosopher o# s%ien%e. He repeats his thesis that the #a%t that s%ientists ta*e a !ast a&ount o# ba%*'round *nowled'e #or 'ranted, is not to sa" that the s%ientist &ust un%riti%all" a%%ept itC the ba%*'round *nowled'e too &a" be %hallen'ed and tested. 2!en

thou'h all o# the ba%*'round assu&ptions &a" be %hallen'ed, it is +uite i&possible to %hallen'e all o# the assu&ptions at the sa&e ti&e. All %riti%is& &ust be 6pie%e&eal6, whi%h Popper sa"s is onl" another wa" o# sa"in' that the #unda&ental &a(i& o# e!er" %riti%al dis%ussion is that one should 6sti%* to the proble&6, be%ause the &is'uided atte&pt to +uestion all ba%*'round assu&ptions &erel" leads to a brea*down o# %riti%al debate. 5urther&ore e!en thou'h the #alsi#i%ation o# a theor" does not re!eal where the error is, ne!ertheless it is still possible to #ind the h"pothesis that is responsible #or the re#utation, i.e. to #ind whi%h h"pothesis is responsible #or the re#uted predi%tion. 7he #a%t that su%h lo'i%al dependen%ies &a" be dis%o!ered is established b" the e(isten%e o# independen%e proo#s #or a(io&atiBed s"ste&sC these are proo#s that show that %ertain a(io&s o# a s"ste& %annot be deri!ed #ro& the rest. Popper ar'ues that the e(isten%e o# su%h proo#s shows that Fuine3s wholisti% !iew o# the 'lobal %hara%ter o# all e&piri%al tests is untenable, and that it e(plains wh" e!en without a(io&atiBed ph"si%al theories, the s%ientist &a" still ha!e an in*lin' o# what has 'one wron' with the theor". .