ŷ������

Contrary to a popular view of Science as ‘observation, recording and measurement��, Popper thinks that it is ‘problem, theory, discussion.�� That is not to say that observation and recording is unimportant, but rather that it happens at a later point in a scientific methodology.

Popper thinks that the idea of the impartial scientist working carefully to observe and record truths is a myth. And it is a pernicious one because it implies the totally false view that scientists undertake their work with objectivity. On the contrary, everyone brings a culture to their work, and scientists are no different. They generally see what their theories presuppose them to see, so theory always precedes observation. It doesn’t arise from it, although observations may lead to tweaks.

People tend to decry presumption, prejudice and arrogance in their scientists but Popper thinks that it can serve a crucially important role in scientific methodology. Passion and willful refusal to accept an alternative viewpoint drive the exhaustive testing which ensures theories acquire credibility.

Popper thinks that science isn’t some dispassionate glance at the world. It always begins with a problem to solve. Scientists form hypotheses, or they accept cultural myths as their hypothesis. It doesn’t matter to Popper how or where the hypothesis comes from. The properly scientific part of their work takes place when they start checking and challenging hypotheses, testing them to end up with the least worst account. That is science!

With that understanding of science, Popper unsurprisingly thinks that there are few differences between science, history and the social sciences. Of course the subject matter differs, and the evidence base differs, but methodologically they are all dealing with problems, and testing rival hypotheses to establish their own views as the best, or least worst, account of matters.

The book opens with a warning against faddish fashions which can infect activities like science. In the same way that people buy the latest style of clothes, they buy into a style of talking and expressing themselves. Unlike clothing fashions, where it is human whim which decides good and bad, science is dealing with objective truths, so fashionable whims can wreck science. Popper spells out what this looks like in his criticisms of the fashionable irrationality of the Copenhagenist views about Quantum Physics. He also attacks the Frankfurt School and their Critical Theory, although it is not so much a matter of evaluating and dismissing their work, as it is a matter of struggling to find enough content and meaning in their work to actually evaluate. In a cutting aside he notes that he sampled some of their work but lay it aside as a ‘mumbo jumbo�� of cultural snobbery and elitism. The Frankfurt school are essentially the ‘opium of the intellectuals�� (p81).

The myth of the framework is a reference to relativism. It is the idea that different academic disciplines, and varying cultures are all working within their own special frameworks, and no one can critique anyone else, unless they are within a common framework to do so. Popper thinks that that is nonsense as anyone can communicate with anyone else if there is enough goodwill. So the demand for a common framework is just a false way of trying to insulate your own ideas from other people’s critique.

Yes goodwill is important but I wonder if Popper’s keenness to reject relativism has pushed him a step too far in his repudiation of the need for a common framework. Ultimately, the ability to talk to each other is only possible if people buy into enough rationalism to accept that words have implications and that some forms of implications are acceptable (logical) and some are not (ie irrational). How can you argue with people to test a scientific hypothesis if they are perfectly content to have contradictions in their thinking, and take the charge of irrationalism as a compliment?

Overall this is an old book of reprinted essays and lectures. It is a well written and argued defence of Popper’s vision of Scientific Methodology, which should be accessible to readers of any background.