The logic of Karl Popper

[Monty Cantsin]

anti-semitism was an evil, to be feared by jews and non-jews alike, and...it was the task of all people of jewish origin to do their best not to provoke it.

Karl Poper, Unended Quest, p, 105.

What do you think of this logic, put forward by popper in his autobiography? It almost seems like his blaming Jews for the holocaust. Why would he do that?

[Janus]

Hmm...interesting. Karl Popper himself was off Jewish origins and had to flee Vienna. So I don't think that he's necessarily blaming them for the Holocaust. Perhaps he means that Jewish people shouldn't fall into the anti-Semitic's traps and reaffirm the lies that the anti-Semites spread.

By the way, do you think that this should really belong in the Philosophy forum?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Edited title at a now lost request of MC to do so.

Did you intend the broader discussion to encompass aspects of hypothetico-deductivism and falsification, or a broader discussion about anti-semitism? If the latter perhaps this should be moved?

Out of interest what does "..." represent? Do you have the full quotation?

[Monty Cantsin]

I don’t have the full quote; I pulled it out of “The End of Science” by John Horgan.

On popper though to broaden the discussion, the idea of falsification is it falsifiable?

[redstar2000]

I am not at all well acquainted with Popper's ideas; I've only read one of his books -- The Open Society and its Enemies. I liked the book's rigorous attacks on Plato and Hegel; I don't think he did so good with Marx.

I can't help but wonder if his idea of "falsifiability" was not, at least in part, a "way out" of dealing with the "hot button questions".

In other words, instead of having to directly confront the "God hypothesis", a Popperian could just say "that's not a scientific question because there's no falsifiable answer".

Think of all the really nasty situations it allows you to neatly side-step with a quick "no comment" to the angrily inquisitive.

I raise this possibility because of the quote from him about Jews "provoking anti-semitism"...an absolutely absurd hypothesis. The Jews of the 19th and early 20th century did nothing to "provoke" anti-semitism except exist.

"Jewish provocation" was never anything but a reactionary lie! That Popper thought there "was" such a thing does not inspire confidence in his other ideas.

Though I still think he was "spot on" about Plato and Hegel. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JimFar]

Karl Popper was known for among other things for his critiques of Marxism, especially the ones that he presented in such works as The Open Society and Its Enemies and The Poverty of Historicism. This sort of thing, made Popper a favorite thinker among the ruling circles in Britain and western Europe during the cold war, although as his biographer Malachi Hacohen suggests in Karl Popper: The Formative Years, 1902-1945, much of his critique of Marxism was forged within the context of the Social Democratic debates concerning how to meet the fascist threat, and that much of Popper's hostility towards Marxism was motivated by his conviction that the Austrian and German Social Democrats had been crippled in their struggle against the rise of fascism by the Marxism that was dominant within those parties. (Hacohen, himself, BTW considers Popper's assessments of Austro-Marxism to have been unduly harsh, pointing out the contributions that Otto Bauer and the others had made to the analysis of fascism).

One Marxist school that attempted to deal with, if not answer Popper were the Analytical Marxists. It is interesting to note Popper's influence on the Analytical Marxist school, both positively and negatively. G.A. Cohen in his Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence makes no mention at all of Popper, and yet his book reads to me as a kind of reply to Popper, since Cohen attempts to reformulate historical materialism (or at least historical materialism as understood by the Second International) as a rigorous empirical theory of history. William Shaw (in Marx's Theory of History) and Dan Little (in The Scientific Marx), on the other hand, do attempt to answer directly Popper's criticisms of Marxism, and they both draw upon Lakatos' critiques of Popper, in doing so.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is interesting that people are critical or Popper, but but more accepting of Kuhn here. Apart from Popper famously attempting to discredit Marxism (which to be fair was really about Leninism... a similar position to Redstar and others one might say) Popper is far more in line with typical materialist thinking than Kuhn.

Popper was undoubtedly important with regards to falsification, although I think that although this answers in part the problem of induction, it is not a realistic view of science in capitalist society, where financial restraints can cause a problem for those who admit that their choice of hypothesis is subjective and irrellevant.

The Quine thesis to me shows the fundamental problem with a raw Popperian view. As Kuhn explained, observations are theory laden. Quine showed that when something goes wrong, it may not be the theory which is being tested which is out, but an auxhilliary hypothesis unpon which the results depend. I would cite the discovery of Neptune as an example here, as it turned out, once assumptions about the solar system were corrected, the laws under examination showed themselves even more valid.

The Popperian view is a quite generally held one, especially amongst those here that are less critical of science, seeing it as some amazing and objective practice. However it does seem to me to be a little inadequate to say the least.

I don't know about the quotation, I wouldn't like to pass comment when in context the meaning might be radically different.

[JimFar]

Given the discussion her of Popper's views on the Jews and on his own Jewish origins, it is interesting to take a look at Popper's views concerning Zionism and Israel.

In Malachi Hacohen's book, Karl Popper - The Formative Years, 1902-1945, Cambridge University Press, Popper's attitudes towards Zionism are described in some detail. According to Hacohen, for Popper, Zionism was a colossal mistake and the creation of Israel was a tragic error. Zionism was an obstacle to the solution of the Jewish question and it incited national conflict between Jews and Arabs. But once Israel had been established, Popper conceded the necessity for preventing an annihilation of the Jews there, and "strongly opposed all those who sympathize with the Arab attempts to expel them." Having said that he still was harshly critical of Israel's treatment of Arabs:

"Of all the countries benefiting from European civilization, South Africa and Israel have racial laws that distinguish between rights of different groups of citizens. The Jews were against Hitler's racism, but theirs goes one step further. They determine Jewishness by mother alone. I opposed Zionism initially because I was against any form of nationalism, but I never expected the Zionists to become racists. It makes me feel ashamed in my origin: I feel responsible for the deeds of Israeli nationalists."

(quoted by Hacohen on p. 305, from a draft of Popper's Autobiography.

In a footnote on the same page, Hacohen points out that Popper made few public expressions of his anti-Zionist views. The public statements included a fleeting condemnation of Jewish nationalism in his Autobiography, an endorsement in The Open Society and Its Enemies of Toynbee's "attack upon nationalist attempts to revive ancient languages, especially in Palestine," and a comparison of Arab refugees with the victims of Pol Pot in Cambodia. In the German edition of his Autobiography, Popper pointed out that Jews under the Habsburg empire enjoyed more rights than do Arabs in Israel. And in an interview with Hacohen, Popper said "[T]hose Jews who criticize me for my tolerance of remaining inequalities under the Hapsburgs should show how many Arab university professors, army officers, and cabinet members the Jewish state has today."

[England Expects]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:14 AM
I am not at all well acquainted with Popper's ideas; I've only read one of his books -- The Open Society and its Enemies. I liked the book's rigorous attacks on Plato and Hegel; I don't think he did so good with Marx.

I can't help but wonder if his idea of "falsifiability" was not, at least in part, a "way out" of dealing with the "hot button questions".

In other words, instead of having to directly confront the "God hypothesis", a Popperian could just say "that's not a scientific question because there's no falsifiable answer".

Think of all the really nasty situations it allows you to neatly side-step with a quick "no comment" to the angrily inquisitive.

I raise this possibility because of the quote from him about Jews "provoking anti-semitism"...an absolutely absurd hypothesis. The Jews of the 19th and early 20th century did nothing to "provoke" anti-semitism except exist.

"Jewish provocation" was never anything but a reactionary lie! That Popper thought there "was" such a thing does not inspire confidence in his other ideas.

Though I still think he was "spot on" about Plato and Hegel. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
A friend of mine loves Karl Popper and keeps banging on about how great his critique of Marx is. Could you elaborate on your dislike of Poppers opinions on Marx?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

EE: I wish I had time to respnd to this, since Popper is a fourth-rate thinker; if you can get hold of Maurice Cornforth's 'The Open Philosophy and the Open Society: A Reply to Dr. Karl Popper's Refutations of Marxism' (London; 1968), you will find a flawed, but useful, response by a professional Marxist philosopher.

There is a brief reply here:

http://harikumar.brinkster.net/MLRB/MLRB9-ImpoverishWC.htm

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by England Expects
A friend of mine loves Karl Popper and keeps banging on about how great his critique of Marx is. Could you elaborate on your dislike of Poppers opinions on Marx?

The reply that Rosa linked to is pertinent. More importantly, I think Marx's hypothesis concerning the "immiseration of the proletariat" is looking much stronger now than it did during Popper's lifetime.

I have read that real wages in the U.S. are now at the level they were in 1964. And average weekly working-hours are at levels not seen since the late 1920s.

Beyond this, Popper's own hypothesis of social improvement through "incremental change" is looking much weaker! The "incremental changes" that we've seen in the "old" capitalist countries over the last three decades have made things worse!

Whenever you hear the word "reform" now, assume the worst! :o

In other words, when Popper was writing, things were "getting better"...and that's simply no longer the case. Nor is there any reason that I can see that things won't continue to get worse!

As is often the case, Popper "looked good" in the period in which he wrote (during World War II), but the passing of time has severely damaged his credibility.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, Red, you can add that Popper's philosophy of science is a joke too; scientists have never, nor are they ever likely, to seek to refute their theories.

Did Darwin try to refute his, or Newton his three laws (the second law is irrefutable anyway, since all the terms invloved, mass, force and acceleration are all inter-defined). In fact, scientists do all they can to defend their ideas in the face of 'anomalies'.

In that case, Popper's theory of science fits no science we know of in human history

Kuhn's account of scientific change (etc.) is vastly superior -- check out the earlier thread on this.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47420

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


And, Red, you can add that Popper's philosophy of science is a joke too; scientists have never, nor are they ever likely, to seek to refute their theories.

I am not sure that Popper would have denied that. I think he would have argued that that doesn't really matter as long as their are other scientists around who will seek to refute these theories. In other words, the fact that people like Newton or Darwin did not seek to refute their own theories would to Popper be irrelevant as long as their were other scientists who were willing to make the effort to attempt such refutations. And the fact that the theories of Newton and Darwin have managed to survive attempted refutations is what gives their credibility.

Speaking of Kuhn, some people like Popper's former student Lakatos, have attempted to combine Popper's and Kuhn's ideas together. Among the Analytical Marxists, both William Shaw and Dan Little have made use of Lakatos' analysis of research programs in science to answer Popper's philosophical criticisms of Marxism. Richard W. Miller in his Analyzing Marx drew upon Kuhn and Feyerabend in his defense of Marxism. In the philosophy of science presented in that book, he, like Popper, presented a falsificationist analysis of science but one in which he provided a more liberalized analysis of how scientific theories are actually falsified (here he drew upon Kuhn & Feyerabend).

I would agree with redstar2000 that Popper's analysis of capitalism looks a lot less credible today than it did back when Popper wrote it in the 1940s. Popper seemed to think that the transient prosperity of the post-WW II era and the seeming success of things like Keyenesian economics and the welfare state in guaranteeing economic prosperity and social harmony would prove to be permanent conditions. Well, things haven't quite worked out as he had expected, to say the least. The classical Marxist analysis of capitalism looks much more credible today than it did back then. On capitalism, Popper has been refuted by subsequent events.

Concerning Popper's politics, it is interesting to note that he cut his teeth politically within the Austrian Social Democrats, after having been briefly a Communist. The dominant tendency with the Austrian Social Democrats at that time was Austro-Marxism, as represented by Otto Bauer, Max Adler, Karl Renner etc. Popper, however, rejected Austro-Marxism, along with Marxism generally, instead, opting for a Bernsteinian revisionism. Popper became convinced that Marxism was at the root of the failures of both the Austrian and the German Social Democrats to successfully resist the rise of fascism. In particular, he believed that the Marxist position on political violence led to confusion and a paralysis of will among the Social Democrats. As Marxists, they in theory supported the use of violence but they were unable to follow through in terms of what a commitment to armed resistance would have required, since in practice, the Social Democrats in both countries had long been committed to legal political action. But by the same token, this theoretical commitment to violence prevented the Social Democrats from seriously considering how a successful non-violent resistance might have been organized. Therefore, they were unable to successfully resist the rise of fascism by either violent or non-violent means.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, you can't expect me to cover every base in my comments here(!):

"I am not sure that Popper would have denied that. I think he would have argued that that doesn't really matter as long as their are other scientists around who will seek to refute these theories. In other words, the fact that people like Newton or Darwin did not seek to refute their own theories would to Popper be irrelevant as long as their were other scientists who were willing to make the effort to attempt such refutations."

Well, were there? Sure there were critics (in Newton's case, Leibniz and Berkeley, etc.), but these characters were in general concerend with philosophical criticisms, which is not what Popper required.

And we all know how scientists respond to 'anomalies' -- for instance, the lack of observed stellar parallax was ostensively a 'refutation' of Copernican astronomy, until it was observed 300 years later!

[As I am sure you are aware there are countless examples like this where 'refutations' are just ignored, or explained by adjusting auxilliary hypotheses -- Lakatos makes a big deal of this but totally misconstrues it).

So, I am aware of Lakatos's work, but, again, I do not rate it. I rather go along with Feyerabend's criticisms of it.

And I am glad you mentioned Miller, but his best book is not the one you mentioned, but 'Fact and Method' -- a book heavily influenced by Wittgenstein (and Marx), as I am sure you are aware. Very little falsificationism in that book!

[JimFar]

If we are going to talk about Kuhn on anamolies, I would point out that a lot of Kuhn's ideas on that subject had already been anticipated by the logical empiricist, Philipp Frank, who it just so happens was still at Harvard, just when Kuhn was starting out as a scholar in the history and philosophy of science. Frank, however, never achieved the level of fame that eventually came to Kuhn. There is a whole discussion of this in George Reisch's book, How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521546893/002-0098422-6868823?v=glance&n=283155).


Going back to Popper, he, as I understand him, did come to acknowledge that anomolies do not automatically refute a theory. They only do so, if people decide that they do. Thus, the objection to Popper that his Critical Rationalism led to a kind of subjective irrationalism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, absolutely right about Frank (a theorist whose work I am only now beginning to appreciate). Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the common link to Wittgenstein, via the Vienna Circle, looms large here.

Yes, I got a copy of Reisch's book last year; very informative.

As far as Popper is concerned, his theory was modified to such an extent (in the face of repeated refutation) that it can now be used as a prime example of self-refutation, if you see what I mean.

[JimFar]

BTW some chapters from Philipp Frank's Modern Science and Its Philosophy, are up, you guessed it, at Raplph Dumain's website (http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/frank-MSP/frank00.html).

Yes, obviously, Frank as one of the original members of the Vienna Circle was well acquainted with Wittgenstein and his work. And in fact, Frank, both in the book cited above and in his book, Philosophy of Science, provided a fairly extensive coverage of Wittgenstein with an emphasis on the Tractatus. I don't recall ever reading anything by Frank on The Philosophical Investigations or other later writings of Wittgenstein.

However, Frank and Kuhn were also connected by the fact that their careers at Harvard partially overlapped. I have heard that there were other writers (also Harvard based) who published ideas similar to the ones associated with Kuhn. So it seems to me that this stuff must have already been in circulation around Harvard Yard during the 1950s.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, I got my own copy from ABE about six months ago -- it anticipates some of my material on ordinary language and common sense, and science.

I have not read Frank's other book, but it is now on my list....

Yes, Mr D has much useful material there, unfortunately none of it written by Mr D.

"However, Frank and Kuhn were also connected by the fact that their careers at Harvard partially overlapped. I have heard that there were other writers (also Harvard based) who published ideas similar to the ones associated with Kuhn. So it seems to me that this stuff must have already been in circulation around Harvard Yard during the 1950s."

And some of the best and most innovative work being done on W himself has originated from there since (via Burton Dreben and others).

[JimFar]

Rosa,

As you probably aware, Philipp Frank came under the scrutiny of the FBI during the McCarthy period in the 1950s. His leadership of the Unity of Science movement (which had been founded by Otto Neurath) aroused suspicion within the academic world, since it, among other things, drew explicitly from Marxism (although not from diamat). Frank was also known as a supporter for various progressive causes. According to a piece that I once read by Jeremy Bernstein (who had studied under Frank), Frank was once visited at his home by a couple of special agents from the FBI, who proceeded to interview him about his alleged Communist connections. At this point, Frank pulled out his bookshelf, a copy of Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and directed the attention of the special agents to the passage in that book, where Lenin specifically singled out the young Frank for criticism, presumably this passage (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/three3.htm) here, where Lenin criticized Frank as a Kantian for embracing Poincare's conventionalism. After skimming through the passage that Frank had picked out, the two agents are said to have saluted Frank and walked out his home, not darkening his door again. :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for that anecdote, I hadn't heard it before!