Popper: Metaphysics

The recent pandemic is a reminder of several important lessons from Popper's philosophy. My aim in this paper is to address some of these lessons. By making use of Popper's theory of three worlds, I explain how coronavirus has a far-reaching impact on the ecosystem of rationality, and how the viruses that threaten humans could also be a threat to the whole life on Earth. Applying the epistemological distinction between science and technology, I go on to explain the pivotal role (...) of science in preventing further crises. This, I argue, is done by putting technology in the sphere of rationality; through both criticizing technologies and inspiring the invention of clean technologies, and also technologies that serve us as alerting systems. I shall argue that critical rationalism helps us to understand the ‘pandemic problem situation’ in a more informed manner and thus helps us to find out about the vulnerable points of our ecosystem of rationality in a more efficient way. In the latter part of the paper, I shall develop the thesis that while during the recent pandemic, science did it best to warn us about its dangers, the policy-makers, who are technologists of a sort, in many countries did not take those warnings seriously. Even when the crisis turned into a global catastrophe, the three types of technologies (health-care, lock-down, and diagnosis and treatment) were not fully efficient in controlling the pandemic. Drawing on Popper’s ideas I shall argue that in the face of the current emergency, our best chance to improve our situation is to apply the method of piecemeal social engineering to alleviate people’s suffering. (shrink)

L’article de Karl Popper « Indeterminism in Quantum Physics and in Classical Physics » est tombé injustement dans l’oubli. Popper jugeait le déterminisme faux : l’avenir est ouvert. En principe, remplacer la variante de Laplace de la pré-détermination par une prédétermination prévisible permet de rendre scienti-fique, donc réfutable, le déterminisme « scientifique ». Popper a affirmé qu’il l’avait réfuté. Maintenant, un système métaphysique peut avoir une extension – au sens mathématique – qui le rend explicatif et testable. Si une extension (...) existe, alors elle n’est pas unique, et de nombreuses autres extensions alterna-tives existent. La preuve de Popper n’est alors pas concluante. (shrink)

Karl Popper’s “Indeterminism in Quantum Physics and in Classical Physics” suffers unjust neglect. He judged determinism false: the future is open. In principle, replacing Laplace's variant of predetermination with predictable predetermination renders “scientific” determinism scientific and so refutable. Popper claimed that he had refuted it. Now a metaphysical system may have an extension—in the mathematical sense—that may render it explanatory and testable. If it exists, then it is not unique but has many alternative extensions. Popper’s proof is then inconclusive.

Despite its ancient heritage, the field of metaphysics has received some of its greatest clarification, defense and development in recent decades from two thinkers with strikingly different backgrounds and interests. European philosopher of science Karl Popper, while attempting to identify how science should be conceived, inadvertently shed much light on metaphysics by concluding that science and metaphysics differ from each other in that the former is empirically falsifiable while the latter is not. This 'Popperian criterion of demarcation' between science and (...) metaphysics helps to explain why the former has managed to correct and improve itself so dramatically in recent centuries through the use of empirical observations and experiments, while the latter does not seem to have derived any similar benefits from empirical sources; this criterion also makes the important practical suggestion that scientific claims should be treated by being subjected to rigorous attempts at empirical falsification to see if they can avoid being overthrown by experience. ;Unfortunately, Popper provided few suggestions as to how metaphysical claims, given their immunity from empirical refutation, should be evaluated. Nevertheless, this 'problem of metaphysics' has recently been addressed by American metaphysician Charles Hartshorne, who has accepted with certain reservations Popper's manner of distinguishing between science and metaphysics and has offered various principles by which the truth or falsity of metaphysical claims can be judged. ;This dissertation constitutes an attempt to appreciate these recent philosophical developments which, despite their significant appearance, have yet to receive much attention in the philosophical world. In particular, we shall examine both Popper's unintentional discovery of the problem of metaphysics and Hartshorne's attempted solution of that problem and utilization of that solution in his own metaphysical speculations. ;Tracing Popper's role in these philosophical developments is important not only because he discovered the problem of metaphysics but because in spite of his personal and doctrinal familiarity with the most vigorously anti-metaphysical thinkers of his age, Popper was able to reaffirm the meaningfulness of metaphysics and to show that a proper assessment of many influential, allegedly scientific doctrines of Marxists, Freudians and others requires that those doctrines be recognized as empirically non-falsifiable and hence metaphysical. . . . UMI. (shrink)

O presente trabalho analisa a perspectiva indeterminista da epistemologia de Karl Popper. A partir da compreensáo unitária do Racionalismo Crítico, como epistemologia e filosofia política, ao mesmo tempo, o artigo mostra em que sentido se pode afirmar que a proposta de Popper revela uma questáo ética de largo alcance e interesse na filosofia contemporânea, sobretudo no que se refere à análise da crise da cientificidade moderna. Palavras-chave: Ética, Indeterminismo, Popper, Racionalismo Crítico.

Karl Popper held an opposition to determinism, based mainly in his political and ethical convictions. Nevertheless, most of his reflections upon it belong to epistemology. This paper studies Popper's refutation of determinism and his three main arguments of a priori nature against it. Some attention is paid also to the Popperian interpretation of quantic mechanical indeterminism.

Popper's political thought, particularly his idea of democracy, is usually thought akin to that of the liberal tradition. We don't challenge this position here, but claim the Popperian idea of democracy gains full meaning when some key ideas of Popper's own cosmology and epistemology are taken into account. Our contention is that Popper's political perspective is indeed rooted in his criticism to physical determinism and his studies on indeterminism. Notions such as "open universe" and "open society", when taken together, provide (...) a key to a liberal interpretation of cosmology and a physical interpretation of democracy. (shrink)

O presente trabalho analisa a perspectiva indeterminista da epistemologia de Karl Popper. A partir da compreensáo unitária do Racionalismo Crítico, como epistemologia e filosofia política, ao mesmo tempo, o artigo mostra em que sentido se pode afirmar que a proposta de Popper revela uma questáo ética de largo alcance e interesse na filosofia contemporânea, sobretudo no que se refere à análise da crise da cientificidade moderna. Palavras-chave: Ética, Indeterminismo, Popper, Racionalismo Crítico.

In this article I have pointed to some contradictions which appear in Popper's „Of Clouds and Clocks”. These contradictions are explained on two different levels. First, they are represented as the result of conceptual confusions. Secondly, they are connected with a paradox which is never explicitly stated by Popper, but which seems fundamental for a better understanding of what the freewill-controversy is about. The paradox is this : on the one hand freedom is usually and naturally considered as self-determination, i.e. (...) as the power to act in accordance with one's own motives, desires, intentions ; but on the other hand, the kind of freedom which is at stake in the freewill-debate, seems to require a determination by „external” elements (rules, theories, ideals, „objectivity”). The influence of these elements goes beyond our control and therefore also beyond our self-determination. The freedom which is defended by Popper, consists in the possibility to be determined by objective standards, i.e. by something which is external to our motives and desires. It is not clear, however, how we should draw a line between the kind of external influence which is opposed to this „freedom” and the kind of external influence which is required by this „freedom”. (shrink)

Determinism seems incompatible with free will. However, even indeterminism seems incompatible with free will, since it seems to make free actions random. Popper contends that free agents are not bound by physical laws, even indeterministic ones, and that undetermined actions are not random if they are influenced by abstract entities. I argue that Popper could strengthen his account by drawing upon his theories of propensities and of limited rationality; but that even then his account would not fully explain why free (...) actions are not random. I offer a solution to this problem which draws on Hornsby’s analysis of action. I then borrow an idea of Kant about self-consciousness to distinguish free agents from sub-human animals. I make a brief evaluation of Popper ’s contribution. (shrink)

El artículo examina la idea popperiana del Mundo 3 como un caso de verdad práctica. El hecho de que Popper hable del conocimiento como de una habilidad práctica da pie a analizar su propuesta en los términos de la filosofía práctica de la ciencia, tal y como ha sido desarrollada por Alfredo Marcos. Este enfoque ofrece una visión más coherente del pensamiento popperiano en el que no cabría distinguir dos etapas incoherentes, una crítica y otra ontológica, sino un mismo pensamiento (...) en el que la relación entre sujeto y objeto de conocimiento no es tan simple como suponen el psicologismo subjetivista ni el objetivismo esencialista (extremos que Popper pretendió evitar siempre). (shrink)

Popper suggests human thought and ideas exist in a world of their own, transcending our thought processes and the material world. Theories, and other human ideological creations such as values, institutions and works of art, develop independently of those who work on them, and have a causal effect on them. What Popper suggests in support of his Platonism does not show that our theories are autonomous in any non trivial way. Also the picture of an abstract world of ideas causally (...) affecting our thought processes is fraught with difficulty. (shrink)

THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM: A GUIDE TO THE CURRENT DEBATE (EDITED BY RICHARD WARNER AND TA D E U S Z SZUBKA) contains recent essays by the key players in the the field of the Mind-Body problem: Searle, Fodor, Problem Honderich, Nagel, McGinn, Stich, Rorty and others. But there are a few interesting exceptions, for example Edelman, Popper, Putnam and Dennett. Nevertheless, these thinkers do get a mention here and there, and nearly all the exciting topical issues are dealt with, including (...) externalism, functionalism, intentionality, Turing computational models, and the relationship between these philosophical problems and psychology. I am particularly struck by the tendency to engage in an evasive stratagem when it comes to stating the physicalist thesis. Instead of a clear definitive position about what kind of physical science would achieve the hoped-for reduction, what I found was variations on Lewis's claim that the reduction would be effected by a "unified body of scientific theories of the sort we now accept". Materialism used to be a clear doctrine: a clockwork Universe of impenetrable particles. But materialism transcended itself. First through Hobbes' and Leibniz's criticisms of Descartes, then Newton's demolition of the Cartesian idea that matter was essentially extension by introducing gravity (action at a distance) and then through the field theories of Faraday and Maxwell, and more recently through Einstein's work, which undermined the "substance" view of matter, something that remained permanent while other changes occurred. I contrast the perspectives of the Churchlands with those of Donald T. Campbell, Karl Popper and other evolutionary and emergentist views. -/- . (shrink)

Popper’s three world doctrine, it has been argued by Peyerahend and Krige, is a rejection of the type of critical dualism of facts and norms articulated in The Open Society. Peyerabend argues further that world 3 acts as a methodological prison designed to restrict the free decision of the individual theoretical scientist. It is my position that Popper's concept of world 3 is not a rejection of critical dualism but rather an attempt to allow for the existence of free normative (...) decisions within the context of a binding tradition. The key to understanding this move is the notion of an objective norm. Specifically I argue that Popper's pluralistic epistemology is based on a traditional many-levelled semantics developed originally to combat psychologism and used now to place the issue of the choice of methodological norms within the framework of a theory of tradition. (shrink)

Ce texte vise à montrer les ressources variées de la thèse des trois mondes de Karl Popper dans l’analyse des questions liées au statut ontologique des artefacts matériels. Bien qu’elle ait été discutée depuis des années, et qu’elle ait fait l’objet de nombreuses critiques, on n’a presque pas remarqué que la thèse de Popper fournit d’excellentes idées pour la description philosophique des artefacts. Ce texte comprend deux sections. Dans la première, on donne un exposé critique des thèses de Popper quant (...) à la réalité et à l’autonomie (partielle) des artefacts. La seconde section présente deux arguments. Le premier se concentre sur la composition et les caractéristiques des artefacts matériels, et le second souligne leurs aspects créatifs et épistémiques. (shrink)

The first part of this paper is an attempt to offer an overview of Popper's World 3 in the light of philospher Rick Roderick's concerns about the growing excess of information in our times . The first part of the paper tries to place Roderick's important words of caution from "The Self under Siege" into the Popperian cosmology and to investigate the ways in which these views can be seen as fitting in Popper's World 3 framework. The second part of (...) the paper is the extension of one of the most famous World 3 thought experiments. This extension allows us to test some effects of the bearing on the human species as well as to explore the kind of fear that it causes. (shrink)

The problem addressed by this dissertation is the subject matter and methods of social science vis-a-vis the natural sciences and the humanities. It is commonly believed that the methodology of the social sciences is basically the same as that of the natural sciences, but that the subject matter--humanity--overlaps with the humanities. According to that view, the often-discussed gap between science and the humanities affects the social sciences as well. ;This project attempts to redirect our way of looking at this problem (...) by employing a number of strategies. First, it examines the issue as it has been explored by contemporary thinkers. Second, it describes the Verstehen method as employed by Max Weber, Karl Jaspers, and others. Third, it distinguishes between the pedagogical and research aspects of scientific theory and finds the former of unusual significance in the social sciences. That is because they are less tied to prediction and more to intuition than are the natural sciences. Fourth, it employs Karl Popper's Three Worlds metaphysics as a way of validating a revised Verstehen approach to the social sciences. ;The Three Worlds model holds that there are three components of reality: the physical world, the intrapsychic world, and the world of culture or objective knowledge. Aside from validating a verstehende social science, the aforementioned model helps to shed light on a number of contemporary issues in the social sciences including: the relationship between causal connections and meaningful connections, the meaning of "explanation," the interaction between mind and matter, the nature of probability and the nature of economics and other social sciences as disciplines. Despite its usefulness, however, the model is difficult for many to accept. ;The author approves of Popper's rejection of monism in favor of pluralism, but unlike Popper, he insists upon the uniqueness of social science. He also questions Popper's insistence on the lack of interaction between worlds 1 and 3. Like Popper, he rejects the notions of group minds or necessity in human history. Instead, he focuses on the role of individual freedom and consciousness as they interact with culture and uses Popper's model to focus our attention upon the significance of culture in the study of humanity. He views social science as running the gamut from natural science to the humanities and as the cornerstone of contemporary education because of its comprehensiveness in comparison with the natural sciences and the humanities. This will be seen to have far-reaching significance not only for the development of social science research, but for pedagogical and other practical applications as well, despite the fact that the project generally steers clear of value-laden issues. Nevertheless, it affirms the need for axiological and faith commitments for human flourishing. (shrink)

This paper utilizes the framework of Karl Popper’s 3-world ontology to make the case that forensic science is a specialized coding system that establishes meaningful connections between the world of biology and the world of human society . Forensic science is a cross-disciplinary endeavor that uses scientific methods to determine what transpired in a crime so the legal system can determine how to prosecute the offender. On a Popperian analysis of forensic science, world 1 consists of evidence gathered at the (...) crime scene, which enables investigators to develop a detailed reconstruction of the incident for consideration under the legal and ethical codes of society, which are products of world 3. Understanding forensic science in this way serves two purposes: first, it extends Marcello Barbieri’s code biology into the realm of philosophical considerations in science, law and ethics; and second, it situates forensic science within the larger context of debates in contemporary philosophy of science. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to critically assess the ‘three-world theory’ as it is presented—with some slight but decisive differences—by Jürgen Habermas and Karl Popper. This theory presents the philosophy of science with a conceptual and material problem, insofar as it claims that science has no single access to all aspects of the world. Although I will try to demonstrate advantages of Popper’s idea of ‘the third world’ of ideas, the shortcomings of his ontological stance become visible from the (...) pragmatic point of view in Habermas’s theory of communicative acts. With regard to the critique that the three-world theory has met in both its pragmatic and ontological versions, I will take a closer look at John Searle’s naturalistic counter-position. By teasing out some problematic implications in his theory of causation, I aim to show that Searle’s approach is, in fact, much closer to Popper’s than he might think. Finally, while condoning Habermas’s distinction between the natural world and the lifeworld, I will opt for a pragmatically differentiated view of ‘the real’, rather than speaking of different worlds. (shrink)

Popper's third world includes a variety of contents of scientific, poetical, and philosophical thought, as well as standards and values. This heterogeneous construction has been associated by Popper with Frege's drittes Reich. The author discussed the problem of legitimizing such a comparison.

In the first part of the paper, the author presents Popper's theory of the objective knowledge and the three worlds in ten theses with a commentary, showing difficulties and vagueness of Popper's theory and trying to clarify it. The second part comprises discussion with a few Popper's theses. The author especially argues against the thesis about autonomy of the third world, and about epistemology limited to examination of only the objects from the third world. In relation to this, the author (...) shows some defects of Popper's argumentation from Objective Knowledge. The conclusion of the article is a different interpretation and an anew formulation of Popper's theory. (shrink)

Este estudo abordará a tese dos três mundos, TTM, de Karl Popper. A TTM como pluralista e interacionista opõe-se ao monismo e a algumas concepções dualistas. Em uma segunda parte, pretendemos enfocar a crítica de Jürgen Habermas quando tenta aplicar a TTM e o M3 (mundo três) na obtençáo de uma justificaçáo da teoria da açáo para a sociologia. Nesta crítica Habermas acaba negligenciando muitos objetivos claros da TTM e do M3 descritos por Popper, principalmente quando náo considera a TTM (...) como uma tese metafísica e como resposta ao problema corpo-mente. (shrink)

This paper aims to critically discuss the versatility of Popper’s theory of three worlds in the analysis of issues related to the ontological status and character of technical artifacts. Despite being discussed over years and hit with numerous criticisms it is still little known that Popper’s thesis has an important bearing on the philosophical characterization of technical artifacts. His key perspectives on the reality, autonomy, and ontological status of artifacts are rarely taken into consideration by scholars known to be engaged (...) in the study of artifacts. This paper consists of two main sections. The first section attempts to present a critical exposition of Popper’s account of reality and autonomy of artifacts. Recent discussions about the longstanding distinction between natural objects and artifacts are brought up and the relevance of Popper’s pluralistic thesis to this debate is pointed out. In addition, attention is drawn towards how to read his notion of the autonomy of artifacts. The primary emphasis of the second section is the ontological position of artifacts. Two separate arguments are posed to challenge the dual ontological status of what Popper called ‘embodied’ World 3 objects or artifacts. The first argument is concerned with the material composition and characteristic features of artifacts. The second one addresses the creative and epistemic value of these artificial products. (shrink)

If we accept Popper's idea that the human habitat is described in terms of three worlds, and that there are overlaps between these three worlds, our moral actions and values will also be subject to the same kinds of consideration as a repertoire of behaviours exhibited in a physical environment. We will develop moral habits in a moral habitat and our moral behaviours will also be dependent on the kind of moral habitat in which we find ourselves.There are three main (...) problems to which this analysis leads and on which we will focus in this paper. Firstly, there is the problem of the kind of moral environment—habitat—that we need to provide for human beings if they are to develop the kinds of moral values that we hold to be important. Secondly, there is the question of how we are to develop the kinds of moral habits themselves and thirdly, there is the question of how these moral habits and habitat are to be maintained. If we take Popper seriously then human beings have a crucial responsibility in the creation of a moral third world—that is, a habitat in which human beings can flourish. Schools have an important role as a moral habitat for the inculcation of good moral habits. (shrink)

Abstract This paper aims to analyse Karl Popper's conception of ?three worlds?, and especially the problem of world 3?the world of objective knowledge. Firstly, I try to explain Popper's turn to ontological questions which I link to his antipsychologism and to issues raised by the development of logic after World War II. I then consider Popper's concept of the autonomy of world 3 and his attempt to introduce world 3 as a world of knowledge without a knowing subject. I conclude (...) that Popper did not succeed in unifying his central idea of autonomy of knowledge with the requirement of the creative role of the critical subject carrying out the evolution of knowledge. I see the core of this contradiction especially in his co?existing ideas of the timeless existence of world 3 and the elimination of the subject from it. The attempt to desubjectivize the realm of objective knowledge leads to a philosophically unbalanced standpoint which presupposes a creative subject and at the same time neglects it. Finally, I question Popper's account of the growth of world 3. Popper considers only cognitive motivations, and excludes a broad range of motivating factors which originate in the problems which we face in our lives, and affect our cognitive interests in world 3. (shrink)

Popper's thesis that the growth of knowledge lies in the emergence of problems out of criticism and takes place in an autonomous world of products of the human mind (his so-called world-3) raises two questions: (1) Why does criticism lead to new problems, and (2) Why can only a limited number of tentative solutions arise at a given time? I propose the following answer: Criticism entails an overlooked evolutionary world-3 mechanism, namely, the migration of piece meal conceptual schemes from one (...) research tradition to another. Popper by passed the questions above because he relied very heavily on the selective power of criticism. (shrink)