Conjectures and Refutations - Karl Popper

Popper had experiences with several prominent theorists of his day, or their admirers. The people highlighted are Marx, Freud, Adler and Einstein.

There is at least some connection to the dominant thinkers of the day to Popper.

He had direct experience with Adler. Where he highlights his ability to interpret some case of Popper’s, which didn't seem related, to be perfectly consumed by the theory.

It’s this infinite or near infinite reach of a theory which Popper had some issues with. The admirers of Marx and Freud followed too, with such infinitely reaching theories.

Popper distinguishes Einstein from these others. His theory of Gravitation took ‘risk’. While there was some possibility of explaining the distances two stellar bodies under classical mechanics, it would be a stretch.

Einsteins theory relied on there being some difference in apparent distance between the sun and a nearby stellar body, during the night and during an eclipse.

Had the distance not been explained, the theory would have been in disrepute.

At the time, these opposing views of Marx, Freud and Adler were seen as scientific. But Poppers belief was that there was a criterion which was not met. But that was met by Einsteins.

The formation of this criterion is that that there are systems of thinking or theories which are confirmation seeking. And that it is generally easy to find confirmations for your theory. However, confirmations of a theory should only count if there is some risk in the prediction. Prior to some theory, we should have held a view that was contrary to the view we now hold. The implication of this is that we are, by the theory and the observation, saying that the retrospective theory or prediction we would have held can no longer hold. If this retrospective theory cannot be refuted, then the previous theory is said to be non scientific. Popper holds that it is a vice of the theory. (This is perhaps unjustified as a moral claim. However it is within the system of science which it is a vice. If the theory claimed to be scientific, and does not hold up this refutation then it is in a state of ‘sin’. But if it was not scientific then what?) The degree to which the theory is able to be tested is a measure of its ‘virtue’(Which contrasts well with Poppers word ‘vice’ to explain the tendency to be irrefutable) These theories must be genuine. That is, there must have been a large degree of effort and thought going in to the theories falsification. If after this theory is subjected to testing, and comes up ‘worthy’(to use these words of antiquity) then it is said to be corroborated. The refusal to abandon the theory is not ruled out by Popper. But he does state that it probably lowers the status of the theory.

Vagueness is a sin in this system, if the vagueness leads to an inability to test. The same is the case for Freud and Adler. However Popper makes a point here which I believe to be important. Freud and Adler may well have been observing correctly some phenomena. However the vagueness of the theory brings these observations in to disrepute. The Astrologers in Poppers example, were making correct observations about the position of constellations for example. However the vagueness of their theory beyond that point is what is in error.

The non scientific, or ‘metaphysical’ (as popper uses the term) is not without importance. Freuds Ego, Id, Super Ego may well have been important observations. But these observations are all they are. They are not statements of facts. Yet they may be important. Popper admits that probably all scientific theories originate from some myth. So the metaphysical might be important in our advancement of the scientific. In ways this is like a silicon valley software engineer venturing in to the desert to take lots of psychedelics. Things like psilocybin can distort the visual observations to be unclear, but give new insight in to actual patterns in their behaviour. It seems reasonable to assume that there is some generative aspect of metaphysics that aids in the creation of new theories. All of this is what Popper would have claimed to be his problem of demarcation much later.

Wittgenstein tried to show in his Tractatus the idea of psuedo-propositions. To Wittgenstein, all of the meaningful things were things which can be found through observation. So meaningful things were reducible to elementary or atomic propositions. Everything else is nonsensical. Wittgenstein brought about a crude criterion of demarcation between science and non science through the verifiability through observations. This demarcation of verifiability is deduction of meaningful statements from observations. Popper believed however that this criterion, which was also getting at this idea of meaning was incorrect. Not only because it exluded things characteristic of science, but included psuedo science.

The history of the demarcation of falsifiability was being interpreted as being a criterion of meaning. Which Popper believed to be a pseudo problem. However there was confusion on this point. He only meant it his theory to mean the demarcation of science and non science. Not some criterion of meaning.