Cite this entry Search the SEP Advanced Search Tools RSS Feed Table of Contents What's New

New Archives Projected Contents Editorial nfor!ation Abo"t the SEP Editorial #oard $ow to Cite the SEP S%ecial Characters S"%%ort the SEP Contact the SEP & 'eta%hysics Research (ab) CS( ) Stanford *niversity

+%en access to the SEP is !ade %ossible by a world,wide f"ndin- initiative. Please Read $ow /o" Can $el% 0ee% the Encyclo%edia Free

Karl Popper

First published Thu Nov 13, 1997; substantive revision Mon Oct 9, 2006 0arl Po%%er is -enerally re-arded as one of the -reatest %hiloso%hers of science of the 12th cent"ry. $e was also a social and %olitical %hiloso%her of considerable stat"re) a self,%rofessed 3critical,rationalist4) a dedicated o%%onent of all for!s of sce%ticis!) conventionalis!) and relativis! in science and in h"!an affairs -enerally) a co!!itted advocate and sta"nch defender of the 3+%en Society4) and an i!%lacable critic of totalitarianis! in all of its for!s. +ne of the !any re!ar5able feat"res of Po%%er's tho"-ht is the sco%e of his intellect"al infl"ence. n the !odern technolo-ical and hi-hly, s%ecialised world scientists are rarely aware of the wor5 of %hiloso%hers6 it is virt"ally "n%recedented to find the! 7"e"in- "%) as they have done in Po%%er's case) to testify to the enor!o"sly %ractical beneficial i!%act which that %hiloso%hical wor5 has had "%on their own. #"t notwithstandin- the fact that he wrote on even the !ost technical !atters with cons"!!ate clarity) the sco%e of Po%%er's wor5 is s"ch that it is co!!on%lace by now to find that co!!entators tend to deal with the e%iste!olo-ical) scientific and social ele!ents of his tho"-ht as if they were 7"ite dis%arate and "nconnected) and th"s the f"nda!ental "nity of his %hiloso%hical vision and !ethod has to a lar-e de-ree been dissi%ated. $ere we will try to trace the threads which interconnect the vario"s ele!ents of his %hiloso%hy) and which -ive it its f"nda!ental "nity. Section $eadin-s8

9. (ife 1. #ac5dro% to his Tho"-ht :. The Proble! of ;e!arcation <. The =rowth of $"!an 0nowled-e >. Probability) 0nowled-e and ?erisi!ilit"de @. Social and Political Tho"-ht A The Criti7"e of $istoricis! and $olis! B. Scientific 0nowled-e) $istory) and Prediction C. !!"table (aws and Contin-ent Trends D. Critical Eval"ation #iblio-ra%hy +ther nternet Reso"rces Related Entries

1. Life
0arl Rai!"nd Po%%er was born on 1C E"ly 9D21 in ?ienna) which at that ti!e co"ld !a5e so!e clai! to be the c"lt"ral e%icentre of the western world. $is %arents) who were of Eewish ori-in) bro"-ht hi! "% in an at!os%here which he was later to describe as 3decidedly boo5ish4. $is father was a lawyer by %rofession) b"t he also too5 a 5een interest in the classics and in %hiloso%hy) and co!!"nicated to his son an interest in social and %olitical iss"es which he was to never lose. $is !other inc"lcated in hi! s"ch a %assion for !"sic that for a ti!e he serio"sly conte!%lated ta5in- it "% as a career) and

indeed he initially chose the history of !"sic as a second s"bject for his Ph.; eFa!ination. S"bse7"ently) his love for !"sic beca!e one of the ins%irational forces in the develo%!ent of his tho"-ht) and !anifested itself in his hi-hly ori-inal inter%retation of the relationshi% between do-!atic and critical thin5in-) in his acco"nt of the distinction between objectivity and s"bjectivity) and) !ost i!%ortantly) in the -rowth of his hostility towards all for!s of historicis!) incl"din- historicist ideas abo"t the nat"re of the 3%ro-ressive4 in !"sic. The yo"n- 0arl attended the local eal!"#nasiu#) where he was "nha%%y with the standards of the teachin-) and) after an illness which 5e%t hi! at ho!e for a n"!ber of !onths) he left to attend the *niversity of ?ienna in 9D9C. $owever) he did not for!ally enrol at the *niversity by ta5in- the !atric"lation eFa!ination for another fo"r years. 9D9D was in !any res%ects the !ost i!%ortant for!ative year of his intellect"al life. n that year he beca!e heavily involved in left, win- %olitics) joined the Association of Socialist School St"dents) and beca!e for a ti!e a 'arFist. $owever) he was 7"ic5ly disill"sioned with the doctrinaire character of the latter) and soon abandoned it entirely. $e also discovered the %sychoanalytic theories of Fre"d and Adler G"nder whose ae-is he en-a-ed briefly in social wor5 with de%rived childrenH) and listened entranced to a lect"re which Einstein -ave in ?ienna on relativity theory. The do!inance of the critical s%irit in Einstein) and its total absence in 'arF) Fre"d and Adler) str"c5 Po%%er as bein- of f"nda!ental i!%ortance8 the latter) he ca!e to thin5) co"ched their theories in ter!s which !ade the! a!enable only to confir!ation) while Einstein's theory) cr"cially) had testable i!%lications which) if false) wo"ld have falsified the theory itself. Po%%er obtained a %ri!ary school teachin- di%lo!a in 9D1>) too5 a Ph.;. in %hiloso%hy in 9D1C) and 7"alified to teach !athe!atics and %hysics in secondary school in 9D1D. The do!inant %hiloso%hical -ro"% in ?ienna at the ti!e was the $iener %reis) the circle of 3scientifically,!inded4 intellect"als foc"sed aro"nd 'oritI Schlic5) who had been a%%ointed Professor of the %hiloso%hy of the ind"ctive sciences at ?ienna *niversity in 9D11. This incl"ded R"dolf Carna%) +tto Ne"rath) ?i5tor 0raft) $ans $ahn and $erbert Fei-l. The %rinci%al objective of the !e!bers of the Circle was to "nify the sciences) which carried with it) in their view) the need to eli!inate !eta%hysics once and for all by showin- that !eta%hysical %ro%ositions are !eanin-less A a %roject which Schlic5 in %artic"lar saw as derivin- fro! the acco"nt of the %ro%osition -iven in Witt-enstein's Tractatus. Altho"-h he was friendly with so!e of the Circle's !e!bers and shared their estee! for science) Po%%er's hostility towards Witt-enstein alienated Schlic5) and he was never invited to beco!e a !e!ber of the -ro"%. For his %art) Po%%er beca!e increasin-ly critical of the !ain tenets of lo-ical %ositivis!) es%ecially of what he considered to be its !is%laced foc"s on the theory of !eanin- in %hiloso%hy and "%on verification in scientific !ethodolo-y) and reveled in the title 3the official o%%osition4 which was bestowed "%on hi! by Ne"rath. $e artic"lated his own view of science) and his criticis!s of the %ositivists) in his first wor5) %"blished "nder the title &o!i' der Forschun! in 9D:<. The boo5 A which he was later to clai! ran- the death 5nell for %ositivis! A attracted !ore attention than Po%%er had antici%ated) and he was invited to lect"re in En-land in 9D:>. $e s%ent the neFt few years wor5in- %rod"ctively on science and %hiloso%hy) b"t stor! clo"ds were -atherin- A the -rowth of NaIis! in =er!any

and A"stria co!%elled hi!) li5e !any other intellect"als who shared his Eewish ori-ins) to leave his native co"ntry. n 9D:B Po%%er too5 "% a %osition teachin- %hiloso%hy at the *niversity of Canterb"ry in New Jealand) where he was to re!ain for the d"ration of the Second World War. The anneFation of A"stria in 9D:C beca!e the catalyst which %ro!%ted hi! to refoc"s his writin-s on social and %olitical %hiloso%hy. n 9D<@ he !oved to En-land to teach at the (ondon School of Econo!ics) and beca!e %rofessor of lo-ic and scientific !ethod at the *niversity of (ondon in 9D<D. Fro! this %oint on Po%%er's re%"tation and stat"re as a %hiloso%her of science and social thin5er -rew enor!o"sly) and he contin"ed to write %rolifically A a n"!ber of his wor5s) %artic"larly The &o!ic o( )cienti(ic *iscover" G9D>DH) are now "niversally reco-nised as classics in the field. $e was 5ni-hted in 9D@>) and retired fro! the *niversity of (ondon in 9D@D) tho"-h he re!ained active as a writer) broadcaster and lect"rer "ntil his death in 9DD<. GFor !ore detail on Po%%er's life) cf. his +nended ,uestH. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

2. Backdrop to his Thought

A n"!ber of bio-ra%hical feat"res !ay be identified as havin- a %artic"lar infl"ence "%on Po%%er's tho"-ht. n the first %lace) his teena-e flirtation with 'arFis! left hi! thoro"-hly fa!iliar with the 'arFist view of econo!ics) class,war) and history. Secondly) he was a%%alled by the fail"re of the de!ocratic %arties to ste! the risin- tide of fascis! in his native A"stria in the 9D12s and 9D:2s) and the effective welco!e eFtended to it by the 'arFists. The latter acted on the ideolo-ical -ro"nds that it constit"ted what they believed to be a necessary dialectical ste% towards the i!%losion of ca%italis! and the "lti!ate revol"tionary victory of co!!"nis!. This was one factor which led to the !"ch feared -nschluss) the anneFation of A"stria by the =er!an Reich) the antici%ation of which forced Po%%er into %er!anent eFile fro! his native co"ntry. The .overt" o( /istoricis# G9D<<H and The Open )ociet" and 0ts 1ne#ies G9D<>H) his !ost i!%assioned and brilliant social wor5s) are as a conse7"ence a %owerf"l defence of de!ocratic liberalis! as a social and %olitical %hiloso%hy) and a devastatin- criti7"e of the %rinci%al %hiloso%hical %res"%%ositions "nder%innin- all for!s of totalitarianis!. Thirdly) as we have seen) Po%%er was %rofo"ndly i!%ressed by the differences between the alle-edly 3scientific4 theories of Fre"d and Adler and the revol"tion effected by Einstein's theory of relativity in %hysics in the first two decades of this cent"ry. The !ain difference between the!) as Po%%er saw it) was that while Einstein's theory was hi-hly 3ris5y4) in the sense that it was %ossible to ded"ce conse7"ences fro! it which were) in the li-ht of the then do!inant Newtonian %hysics) hi-hly i!%robable Ge.-.) that li-ht is deflected towards solid bodies A confir!ed by Eddin-ton's eF%eri!ents in 9D9DH) and which wo"ld) if they t"rned o"t to be false) falsify the whole theory) nothin- co"ld) even in principle) falsify %sychoanalytic theories. These latter) Po%%er ca!e to feel) have !ore in co!!on with %ri!itive !yths than with -en"ine science. That is to say) he saw that what is a%%arently the chief so"rce of stren-th of %sychoanalysis) and the %rinci%al basis on which its clai! to scientific stat"s is -ro"nded) viI. its ca%ability to acco!!odate) and eF%lain) every %ossible for! of h"!an behavio"r) is in fact a critical wea5ness) for it

entails that it is not) and co"ld not be) -en"inely %redictive. Psychoanalytic theories by their nat"re are ins"fficiently %recise to have ne-ative i!%lications) and so are i!!"nised fro! eF%eriential falsification. The 'arFist acco"nt of history too) Po%%er held) is not scientific) altho"-h it differs in certain cr"cial res%ects fro! %sychoanalysis. For 'arFis!) Po%%er believed) had been initially scientific) in that 'arF had %ost"lated a theory which was -en"inely %redictive. $owever) when these %redictions were not in fact borne o"t) the theory was saved fro! falsification by the addition of ad hoc hy%otheses which !ade it co!%atible with the facts. #y this !eans) Po%%er asserted) a theory which was initially -en"inely scientific de-enerated into %se"do,scientific do-!a. These factors co!bined to !a5e Po%%er ta5e (alsi(iabilit" as his criterion for de!arcatinscience fro! non,science8 if a theory is inco!%atible with %ossible e!%irical observations it is scientific6 conversely) a theory which is co!%atible with all s"ch observations) either beca"se) as in the case of 'arFis!) it has been !odified solely to acco!!odate s"ch observations) or beca"se) as in the case of %sychoanalytic theories) it is consistent with all %ossible observations) is "nscientific. For Po%%er) however) to assert that a theory is "nscientific) is not necessarily to hold that it is "nenli-htenin-) still less that it is !eanin-less) for it so!eti!es ha%%ens that a theory which is "nscientific Gbeca"se it is "nfalsifiableH at a -iven ti!e !ay beco!e falsifiable) and th"s scientific) with the develo%!ent of technolo-y) or with the f"rther artic"lation and refine!ent of the theory. F"rther) even %"rely !ytho-enic eF%lanations have %erfor!ed a val"able f"nction in the %ast in eF%editin- o"r "nderstandin- of the nat"re of reality. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

3. The Problem of Demarcation

As Po%%er re%resents it) the central %roble! in the %hiloso%hy of science is that of de!arcation) i.e.) of distin-"ishin- between science and what he ter!s 3non,science4) "nder which headin- he ran5s) a!on-st others) lo-ic) !eta%hysics) %sychoanalysis) and Adler's individ"al %sycholo-y. Po%%er is "n"s"al a!on-st conte!%orary %hiloso%hers in that he accepts the validity of the $"!ean criti7"e of ind"ction) and indeed) -oes beyond it in ar-"in- that ind"ction is never act"ally "sed by the scientist. $owever) he does not concede that this entails the sce%ticis! which is associated with $"!e) and ar-"es that the #aconianMNewtonian insistence on the %ri!acy of 3%"re4 observation) as the initial ste% in the for!ation of theories) is co!%letely !is-"ided8 all observation is selective and theory,laden A there are no %"re or theory,free observations. n this way he destabilises the traditional view that science can be distin-"ished fro! non,science on the basis of its ind"ctive !ethodolo-y6 in contradistinction to this) Po%%er holds that there is no "ni7"e !ethodolo-y s%ecific to science. Science) li5e virt"ally every other h"!an) and indeed or-anic) activity) Po%%er believes) consists lar-ely of %roble!,solvin-. Po%%er) then) re%"diates ind"ction) and rejects the view that it is the characteristic !ethod of scientific investi-ation and inference) and s"bstit"tes (alsi(iabilit" in its %lace. t is easy) he ar-"es) to obtain evidence in favo"r of virt"ally any theory) and he conse7"ently

holds that s"ch 3corroboration4) as he ter!s it) sho"ld co"nt scientifically only if it is the %ositive res"lt of a -en"inely 3ris5y4 %rediction) which !i-ht conceivably have been false. For Po%%er) a theory is scientific only if it is ref"table by a conceivable event. Every -en"ine test of a scientific theory) then) is lo-ically an atte!%t to ref"te or to falsify it) and one -en"ine co"nter,instance falsifies the whole theory. n a critical sense) Po%%er's theory of de!arcation is based "%on his %erce%tion of the lo-ical asy!!etry which holds between verification and falsification8 it is lo-ically i!%ossible to concl"sively verify a "niversal %ro%osition by reference to eF%erience Gas $"!e saw clearlyH) b"t a sin-le co"nter,instance concl"sively falsifies the corres%ondin- "niversal law. n a word) an eFce%tion) far fro! 3%rovin-4 a r"le) concl"sively ref"tes it. Every -en"ine scientific theory then) in Po%%er's view) is prohibitive) in the sense that it forbids) by i!%lication) %artic"lar events or occ"rrences. As s"ch it can be tested and falsified) b"t never lo-ically verified. Th"s Po%%er stresses that it sho"ld not be inferred fro! the fact that a theory has withstood the !ost ri-oro"s testin-) for however lon- a %eriod of ti!e) that it has been verified6 rather we sho"ld reco-nise that s"ch a theory has received a hi-h !eas"re of corroboration. and !ay be %rovisionally retained as the best available theory "ntil it is finally falsified Gif indeed it is ever falsifiedH) andMor is s"%erseded by a better theory. Po%%er has always drawn a clear distinction between the lo!ic of falsifiability and its applied #ethodolo!". The lo-ic of his theory is "tterly si!%le8 if a sin-le ferro"s !etal is "naffected by a !a-netic field it cannot be the case that all ferro"s !etals are affected by !a-netic fields. (o-ically s%ea5in-) a scientific law is concl"sively falsifiable altho"-h it is not concl"sively verifiable. 'ethodolo-ically) however) the sit"ation is !"ch !ore co!%leF8 no observation is free fro! the %ossibility of error A conse7"ently we !ay 7"estion whether o"r eF%eri!ental res"lt was what it a%%eared to be. Th"s) while advocatin- falsifiability as the criterion of de!arcation for science) Po%%er eF%licitly allows for the fact that in %ractice a sin-le conflictin- or co"nter,instance is never s"fficient !ethodolo-ically to falsify a theory) and that scientific theories are often retained even tho"-h !"ch of the available evidence conflicts with the!) or is ano!alo"s with res%ect to the!. Scientific theories !ay) and do) arise -enetically in !any different ways) and the !anner in which a %artic"lar scientist co!es to for!"late a %artic"lar theory !ay be of bio-ra%hical interest) b"t it is of no conse7"ence as far as the %hiloso%hy of science is concerned. Po%%er stresses in %artic"lar that there is no "ni7"e way) no sin-le !ethod s"ch as ind"ction) which f"nctions as the ro"te to scientific theory) a view which Einstein %ersonally endorsed with his affir!ation that 3There is no lo-ical %ath leadin- to Kthe hi-hly "niversal laws of scienceL. They can only be reached by int"ition) based "%on so!ethin- li5e an intellect"al love of the objects of eF%erience4. Science) in Po%%er's view) starts with %roble!s rather than with observations A it is) indeed) %recisely in the conteFt of -ra%%lin- with a %roble! that the scientist !a5es observations in the first instance8 his observations are selectively desi-ned to test the eFtent to which a -iven theory f"nctions as a satisfactory sol"tion to a -iven %roble!.

+n this criterion of de!arcation %hysics) che!istry) and Gnon,intros%ectiveH %sycholo-y) a!on-st others) are sciences) %sychoanalysis is a %re,science Gi.e.) it "ndo"btedly contains "sef"l and infor!ative tr"ths) b"t "ntil s"ch ti!e as %sychoanalytical theories can be for!"lated in s"ch a !anner as to be falsifiable) they will not attain the stat"s of scientific theoriesH) and astrolo-y and %hrenolo-y are %se"do,sciences. For!ally) then) Po%%er's theory of de!arcation !ay be artic"lated as follows8 where a 3basic state!ent4 is to be "nderstood as a %artic"lar observation,re%ort) then we !ay say that a theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic state!ents into the followin- two non, e!%ty s"b,classes8 GaH the class of all those basic state!ents with which it is inconsistent) or which it %rohibits A this is the class of its potential (alsi(iers Gi.e.) those state!ents which) if tr"e) falsify the whole theoryH) and GbH the class of those basic state!ents with which it is consistent) or which it %er!its Gi.e.) those state!ents which) if tr"e) corroborate it) or bear it o"tH. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

4. The

ro!th of "uman Kno!ledge

For Po%%er accordin-ly) the -rowth of h"!an 5nowled-e %roceeds fro! o"r %roble!s and fro! o"r atte!%ts to solve the!. These atte!%ts involve the for!"lation of theories which) if they are to eF%lain ano!alies which eFist with res%ect to earlier theories) !"st -o beyond eFistin- 5nowled-e and therefore re7"ire a lea% of the i!a-ination. For this reason) Po%%er %laces s%ecial e!%hasis on the role %layed by the inde%endent creative i!a-ination in the for!"lation of theory. The centrality and %riority of proble#s in Po%%er's acco"nt of science is %ara!o"nt) and it is this which leads hi! to characterise scientists as 3%roble!,solvers4. F"rther) since the scientist be-ins with %roble!s rather than with observations or 3bare facts4) Po%%er ar-"es that the only lo-ical techni7"e which is an inte-ral %art of scientific !ethod is that of the ded"ctive testin- of theories which are not the!selves the %rod"ct of any lo-ical o%eration. n this ded"ctive %roced"re concl"sions are inferred fro! a tentative hy%othesis. These concl"sions are then co!%ared with one another and with other relevant state!ents to deter!ine whether they falsify or corroborate the hy%othesis. S"ch concl"sions are not directly co!%ared with the facts) Po%%er stresses) si!%ly beca"se there are no 3%"re4 facts available6 all observation,state!ents are theory,laden) and are as !"ch a f"nction of %"rely s"bjective factors Ginterests) eF%ectations) wishes) etc.H as they are a f"nction of what is objectively real. $ow then does the ded"ctive %roced"re wor5N Po%%er s%ecifies fo"r ste%s8 GaH The first is (or#al) a testin- of the internal consistency of the theoretical syste! to see if it involves any contradictions. GbH The second ste% is se#i2(or#al, the aFio!atisin- of the theory to distin-"ish between its e!%irical and its lo-ical ele!ents. n %erfor!in- this ste% the scientist !a5es the lo-ical for! of the theory eF%licit. Fail"re to do this can lead to cate-ory,!ista5es A the scientist ends "% as5in- the wron- 7"estions) and searches for e!%irical data where none are available. 'ost scientific theories contain analytic Gi.e.) a prioriH and synthetic ele!ents) and it is necessary to aFio!atise the! in order to distin-"ish the two clearly.

GcH The third ste% is the co!%arin- of the new theory with eFistin- ones to deter!ine whether it constit"tes an advance "%on the!. f it does not constit"te s"ch an advance) it will not be ado%ted. f) on the other hand) its eF%lanatory s"ccess !atches that of the eFistin- theories) and additionally) it eF%lains so!e hitherto ano!alo"s %heno!enon) or solves so!e hitherto "nsolvable %roble!s) it will be dee!ed to constit"te an advance "%on the eFistin- theories) and will be ado%ted. Th"s science involves theoretical %ro-ress. $owever) Po%%er stresses that we ascertain whether one theory is better than another by ded"ctively testin- both theories) rather than by ind"ction. For this reason) he ar-"es that a theory is dee!ed to be better than another if Gwhile "nfalsifiedH it has -reater e!%irical content) and therefore -reater %redictive %ower than its rival. The classic ill"stration of this in %hysics was the re%lace!ent of Newton's theory of "niversal -ravitation by Einstein's theory of relativity. This el"cidates the nat"re of science as Po%%er sees it8 at any -iven ti!e there will be a n"!ber of conflictin- theories or conject"res) so!e of which will eF%lain !ore than others. The latter will conse7"ently be %rovisionally ado%ted. n short) for Po%%er any theory 3 is better than a 3rival4 theory 4 if 3 has !reater e#pirical content) and hence !reater predictive po5er) than /. GdH The fo"rth and final ste% is the testin- of a theory by the e!%irical a%%lication of the concl"sions derived fro! it. f s"ch concl"sions are shown to be tr"e) the theory is corroborated Gb"t never verifiedH. f the concl"sion is shown to be false) then this is ta5en as a si-nal that the theory cannot be co!%letely correct Glo-ically the theory is falsifiedH) and the scientist be-ins his 7"est for a better theory. $e does not) however) abandon the %resent theory "ntil s"ch ti!e as he has a better one to s"bstit"te for it. 'ore %recisely) the !ethod of theory,testin- is as follows8 certain sin-"lar %ro%ositions are ded"ced fro! the new theory A these are %redictions) and of s%ecial interest are those %redictions which are 3ris5y4 Gin the sense of bein- int"itively i!%la"sible or of bein- startlin-ly novelH and eF%eri!entally testable. Fro! a!on-st the latter the scientist neFt selects those which are not derivable fro! the c"rrent or eFistin- theory A of %artic"lar i!%ortance are those which contradict the c"rrent or eFistin- theory. $e then see5s a decision as re-ards these and other derived state!ents by co!%arin- the! with the res"lts of %ractical a%%lications and eF%eri!entation. f the new %redictions are borne o"t) then the new theory is corroborated Gand the old one falsifiedH) and is ado%ted as a wor5in- hy%othesis. f the %redictions are not borne o"t) then they falsify the theory fro! which they are derived. Th"s Po%%er retains an ele!ent of e!%iricis!8 for hi! scientific !ethod does involve !a5in- an a%%eal to eF%erience. #"t "nli5e traditional e!%iricists) Po%%er holds that eF%erience cannot deter#ine theory Gi.e.) we do not ar-"e or infer fro! observation to theoryH) it rather deli#its it8 it shows which theories are false) not which theories are tr"e. 'oreover) Po%%er also rejects the e!%iricist doctrine that e!%irical observations are) or can be) infallible) in view of the fact that they are the!selves theory, laden. The -eneral %ict"re of Po%%er's %hiloso%hy of science) then is this8 $"!e's %hiloso%hy de!onstrates that there is a contradiction i!%licit in traditional e!%iricis!) which holds both that all 5nowled-e is derived fro! eF%erience and that "niversal %ro%ositions Gincl"din- scientific lawsH are verifiable by reference to eF%erience. The contradiction) which $"!e hi!self saw clearly) derives fro! the atte!%t to show that) notwithstandinthe o%en,ended nat"re of eF%erience) scientific laws !ay be constr"ed as e!%irical

-eneralisations which are in so!e way finally confir!able by a 3%ositive4 eF%erience. Po%%er eli!inates the contradiction by rejectin- the first of these %rinci%les and re!ovinthe de!and for e!%irical verification in favo"r of e!%irical falsification in the second. Scientific theories) for hi!) are not ind"ctively inferred fro! eF%erience) nor is scientific eF%eri!entation carried o"t with a view to verifyin- or finally establishin- the tr"th of theories6 rather) all 'no5led!e is provisional, con6ectural, h"pothetical A we can never finally %rove o"r scientific theories) we can !erely G%rovisionallyH confir! or Gconcl"sivelyH ref"te the!6 hence at any -iven ti!e we have to choose between the %otentially infinite n"!ber of theories which will eF%lain the set of %heno!ena "nder investi-ation. Faced with this choice) we can only eli!inate those theories which are de!onstrably false) and rationally choose between the re!ainin-) "nfalsified theories. $ence Po%%er's e!%hasis on the i!%ortance of the critical s%irit to science A for hi! critical thin5in- is the very essence of rationality. For it is only by critical tho"-ht that we can eli!inate false theories) and deter!ine which of the re!ainin- theories is the best available one) in the sense of %ossessin- the hi-hest level of eF%lanatory force and %redictive %ower. t is %recisely this 5ind of critical thin5in- which is cons%ic"o"s by its absence in conte!%orary 'arFis! and in %sychoanalysis. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

#. Probabilit$% Kno!ledge and &erisimilitude

n the view of !any social scientists) the !ore %robable a theory is) the better it is) and if we have to choose between two theories which are e7"ally stron- in ter!s of their eF%lanatory %ower) and differ only in that one is %robable and the other is i!%robable) then we sho"ld choose the for!er. Po%%er rejects this. Science) or to be %recise) the wor5in- scientist) is interested) in Po%%er's view) in theories with a hi-h infor!ative content) beca"se s"ch theories %ossess a hi-h %redictive %ower and are conse7"ently hi-hly testable. #"t if this is tr"e) Po%%er ar-"es) then) %aradoFical as it !ay so"nd) the !ore i#probable a theory is the better it is scientifically) beca"se the %robability and infor!ative content of a theory vary inversely A the hi-her the infor!ative content of a theory the lower will be its %robability) for the !ore infor!ation a state!ent contains) the -reater will be the n"!ber of ways in which it !ay t"rn o"t to be false. Th"s the state!ents which are of s%ecial interest to the scientist are those with a hi-h infor!ative content and Gconse7"entiallyH a low %robability) which nevertheless co!e close to the tr"th. nfor!ative content) which is in inverse %ro%ortion to %robability) is in direct %ro%ortion to testability. Conse7"ently the severity of the test to which a theory can be s"bjected) and by !eans of which it is falsified or corroborated) is all,i!%ortant. For Po%%er) all scientific criticis! !"st be %iece!eal) i.e.) he holds that it is not %ossible to 7"estion every as%ect of a theory at once. 'ore %recisely) while atte!%tin- to resolve a %artic"lar %roble! a scientist of necessity acce%ts all 5inds of thin-s as "n%roble!atic. These thin-s constit"te what Po%%er ter!s the 3bac5-ro"nd 5nowled-e4. $owever) he stresses that the bac5-ro"nd 5nowled-e is not 5nowled-e in the sense of beinconcl"sively established6 it !ay be challen-ed at any ti!e) es%ecially if it is s"s%ected that its "ncritical acce%tance !ay be res%onsible for diffic"lties which are s"bse7"ently enco"ntered. Nevertheless) it is clearly not %ossible to 7"estion both the theory and the

bac5-ro"nd 5nowled-e at the sa!e ti!e Ge.-.) in cond"ctin- an eF%eri!ent the scientist of necessity ass"!es that the a%%arat"s "sed is in wor5in- orderH. $ow then can one be certain that one is 7"estionin- the ri-ht thin-N The Po%%erian answer is that we cannot have absol"te certainty here) b"t re%eated tests "s"ally show where the tro"ble lies. Even observation state!ents) Po%%er !aintains) are fallible) and science in his view is not a 7"est for certain 5nowled-e) b"t an evol"tionary %rocess in which hy%otheses or conject"res are i!a-inatively %ro%osed and tested in order to eF%lain facts or to solve %roble!s. Po%%er e!%hasises both the i!%ortance of 7"estioninthe bac5-ro"nd 5nowled-e when the need arises) and the si-nificance of the fact that observation,state!ents are theory,laden) and hence fallible. For while falsifiability is si!%le as a lo-ical %rinci%le) in %ractice it is eFceedin-ly co!%licated A no sin-le observation can ever be ta5en to falsify a theory) for there is always the %ossibility GaH that the observation itself is !ista5en) or GbH that the ass"!ed bac5-ro"nd 5nowled-e is fa"lty or defective. Po%%er was initially "neasy with the conce%t of tr"th) and in his earliest writin-s he avoided assertin- that a theory which is corroborated is tr"e A for clearly if every theory is an o%en,ended hy%othesis) as he !aintains) then ipso (acto it has to be at least %otentially false. For this reason Po%%er restricted hi!self to the contention that a theory which is falsified is false and is 5nown to be s"ch) and that a theory which re%laces a falsified theory Gbeca"se it has a hi-her e!%irical content than the latter) and eF%lains what has falsified itH is a 3better theory4 than its %redecessor. $owever) he ca!e to acce%t Tars5i's refor!"lation of the corres%ondence theory of tr"th) and in 7on6ectures and e(utations G9D@:H he inte-rated the conce%ts of tr"th and content to fra!e the !etalo-ical conce%t of 3tr"thli5eness4 or 3verisi#ilitude4. A 3-ood4 scientific theory) Po%%er th"s ar-"ed) has a hi-her level of verisi!ilit"de than its rivals) and he eF%licated this conce%t by reference to the lo-ical conse7"ences of theories. A theory's content is the totality of its lo-ical conse7"ences) which can be divided into two classes8 there is the 3truth2content4 of a theory) which is the class of tr"e %ro%ositions which !ay be derived fro! it) on the one hand) and the 3(alsit"2content4 of a theory) on the other hand) which is the class of the theory's false conse7"ences Gthis latter class !ay of co"rse be e!%ty) and in the case of a theory which is tr"e is necessarily e!%tyH. Po%%er offered two !ethods of co!%arin- theories in ter!s of verisi!ilit"de) the 7"alitative and 7"antitative definitions. +n the 7"alitative acco"nt) Po%%er asserted8 Ass"!in- that the tr"th,content and the falsity,content of two theories t9 and t1 are co!%arable) we can say that t1 is !ore closely si!ilar to the tr"th) or corres%onds better to the facts) than t9) if and only if either8 GaH the tr"th,content b"t not the falsity,content of t1 eFceeds that of t9) or GbH the falsity,content of t9) b"t not its tr"th,content) eFceeds that of t1. G7on6ectures and e(utations) 1::H.

$ere) verisi!ilit"de is defined in ter!s of s"bclass relationshi%s8 t1 has a hi-her level of verisi!ilit"de than t9 if and only if their tr"th, and falsity,contents are co!%arable thro"-h s"bclass relationshi%s) and either GaH t1's tr"th,content incl"des t9's and t1's falsity, content) if it eFists) is incl"ded in) or is the sa!e as) t9's) or GbH t1's tr"th,content incl"des or is the sa!e as t9's and t1's falsity,content) if it eFists) is incl"ded in t9's. +n the 7"antitative acco"nt) verisi!ilit"de is defined by assi-nin- 7"antities to contents) where the indeF of the content of a -iven theory is its lo-ical i!%robability G-iven a-ain that content and %robability vary inverselyH. For!ally) then) Po%%er defines the 7"antitative verisi!ilit"de which a state!ent 3a4 %ossesses by !eans of a for!"la8 8sGaH O 7tTGaH P 7tFGaH) where 8sGaH re%resents the verisi!ilit"de of a) 7tTGaH is a !eas"re of the tr"th,content of a) and 7tFGaH is a !eas"re of its falsity,content. The "tilisation of either !ethod of co!%"tin- verisi!ilit"de shows) Po%%er held) that even if a theory t1 with a hi-her content than a rival theory t9 is s"bse7"ently falsified) it can still le-iti!ately be re-arded as a better theory than t9) and 3better4 is here now "nderstood to !ean t1 is closer to the truth than t9. Th"s scientific %ro-ress involves) on this view) the abandon!ent of %artially tr"e) b"t falsified) theories) for theories with a hi-her level of verisi!ilit"de) i.e.) which a%%roach !ore closely to the tr"th. n this way) verisi!ilit"de allowed Po%%er to !iti-ate what !any saw as the %essi!is! of an anti, ind"ctivist %hiloso%hy of science which held that !ost) if not all scientific theories are false) and that a tr"e theory) even if discovered) co"ld not be 'no5n to be s"ch. With the introd"ction of the new conce%t) Po%%er was able to re%resent this as an essentially o%ti!istic %osition in ter!s of which we can le-iti!ately be said to have reason to believe that science !a5es %ro-ress towards the tr"th thro"-h the falsification and corroboration of theories. Scientific %ro-ress) in other words) co"ld now be re%resented as %ro-ress to5ards the tr"th) and eF%eri!ental corroboration co"ld be seen an indicator of verisi!ilit"de. $owever) in the 9DB2's a series of %a%ers %"blished by researchers s"ch as 'iller) TichQ) and =rRnba"! in %artic"lar revealed f"nda!ental defects in Po%%er's for!al definitions of verisi!ilit"de. The si-nificance of this wor5 was that verisi!ilit"de is lar-ely i!%ortant in Po%%er's syste! beca"se of its a%%lication to theories which are 5nown to be (alse. n this connection) Po%%er had written8 *lti!ately) the idea of verisi!ilit"de is !ost i!%ortant in cases where we 5now that we have to wor5 with theories which are at best a%%roFi!ationsAthat is to say) theories of which we 5now that they cannot be tr"e. GThis is often the case in the social sciencesH. n these cases we can still s%ea5 of better or worse a%%roFi!ations to the tr"th Gand we therefore do not need to inter%ret these cases in an instr"!entalist senseH. G7on6ectures and e(utations) 1:>H.

For these reasons) the deficiencies discovered by the critics in Po%%er's for!al definitions were seen by !any as devastatin-) %recisely beca"se the !ost si-nificant of these related to the levels of verisi!ilit"de of (alse theories. n 9DB<) 'iller and TichQ) wor5ininde%endently of each other) de!onstrated that the conditions s%ecified by Po%%er in his acco"nts of both 7"alitative and 7"antitative verisi!ilit"de for co!%arin- the tr"th, and falsity,contents of theories can be satisfied only when the theories are true. n the cr"cially i!%ortant case of false theories) however) Po%%er's definitions are for!ally defective. For while Po%%er had believed that verisi!ilit"de intersected %ositively with his acco"nt of corroboration) in the sense that he viewed an i!%robable theory which had withstood critical testin- as one the tr"th,content of which is -reat relative to rival theories) while its falsity,content Gif it eFistsH wo"ld be relatively low) 'iller and TichQ %roved) on the contrary) that in the case of a false theory t1which has eFcess content over a rival theory false t9both the tr"th,content and the falsity,content of t1will eFceed that of t9. With res%ect to theories which are false) therefore) Po%%er's conditions for co!%arinlevels of verisi!ilit"de) whether in 7"antitative and 7"alitative ter!s) can never be !et. Co!!entators on Po%%er) with few eFce%tions) had initially attached little i!%ortance to his theory of verisi!ilit"de. $owever) after the fail"re of Po%%er's definitions in 9DB<) so!e critics ca!e to see it as central to his %hiloso%hy of science) and conse7"entially held that the whole edifice of the latter had been s"bverted. For his %art) Po%%er's res%onse was two,fold. n the first %lace) while ac5nowled-in- the deficiencies in his own for!al acco"nt GS!y !ain !ista5e was !y fail"re to see at once that T if the content of a false state!ent a eFceeds that of a state!ent b) then the tr"th,content of a eFceeds the tr"th,content of b) and the sa!e holds of their falsity,contentsS) Ob6ective %no5led!e) :B9H) Po%%er ar-"ed that S do thin5 that we sho"ld not concl"de fro! the fail"re of !y atte!%ts to solve the %roble! Kof definin- verisi!ilit"deL that the %roble! cannot be solvedS GOb6ective %no5led!e) :B1H) a %oint of view which was to %reci%itate !ore than two decades of i!%ortant technical research in this field. At another) !ore f"nda!ental level) he !oved the tas5 of for!ally definin- the conce%t fro! centre,sta-e in his %hiloso%hy of science) by %rotestin- that he had never intended to i!%ly Sthat de-rees of verisi!ilit"de T can ever be n"!erically deter!ined) eFce%t in certain li!itin- casesS GOb6ective %no5led!e) >DH) and ar-"in- instead that the chief val"e of the conce%t is he"ristic and int"itive) in which the absence of an ade7"ate for!al definition is not an ins"%erable i!%edi!ent to its "tilisation in the act"al a%%raisal of theories relativised to %roble!s in which we have an interest. The thr"st of the latter strate-y see!s to !any to -en"inely reflect the si-nificance of the conce%t of verisi!ilit"de in Po%%er's syste!) b"t it has not satisfied all of his critics. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

'. (ocial and Political Thought ) The *riti+ue of "istoricism and "olism
=iven Po%%er's %ersonal history and bac5-ro"nd) it is hardly s"r%risin- that he develo%ed a dee% and abidin- interest in social and %olitical %hiloso%hy. $owever) it is worth e!%hasisin- that his an-le of a%%roach to these fields is thro"-h a consideration of the

nat"re of the social sciences which see5 to describe and eF%licate the! syste!atically) %artic"larly history. t is in this conteFt that he offers an acco"nt of the nat"re of scientific %rediction) which in t"rn allows hi! a %oint of de%art"re for his attac5 "%on totalitarianis! and all its intellect"al s"%%orts) es%ecially holis! and historicis!. n this conteFt holis! is to be "nderstood as the view that h"!an social -ro"%in-s are -reater than the s"! of their !e!bers) that s"ch -ro"%in-s are 3or-anic4 entities in their own ri-ht) that they act on their h"!an !e!bers and sha%e their destinies) and that they are s"bject to their own inde%endent laws of develo%!ent. $istoricis!) which is closely associated with holis!) is the belief that history develo%s ineForably and necessarily accordin- to certain %rinci%les or r"les towards a deter!inate end Gas for eFa!%le in the dialectic of $e-el) which was ado%ted and i!%le!ented by 'arFH. The lin5 between holis! and historicis! is that the holist believes that individ"als are essentially for!ed by the social -ro"%in-s to which they belon-) while the historicist A who is "s"ally also a holist A holds that we can "nderstand s"ch a social -ro"%in- only in ter!s of the internal %rinci%les which deter!ine its develo%!ent. These beliefs lead to what Po%%er calls 3The $istoricist ;octrine of the Social Sciences4) the views GaH that the %rinci%al tas5 of the social sciences is to !a5e %redictions abo"t the social and %olitical develo%!ent of !an) and GbH that the tas5 of %olitics) once the 5ey %redictions have been !ade) is) in 'arF's words) to lessen the 3birth %an-s4 of f"t"re social and %olitical develo%!ents. Po%%er thin5s that this view of the social sciences is both theoretically !isconceived Gin the sense of bein- based "%on a view of nat"ral science and its !ethodolo-y which is totally wron-H) and socially dan-ero"s) as it leads inevitably to totalitarianis! and a"thoritarianis! A to centralised -overn!ental control of the individ"al and the atte!%ted i!%osition of lar-e,scale social %lannin-. A-ainst this Po%%er stron-ly advances the view that any h"!an social -ro"%in- is no !ore Gor lessH than the s"! of its individ"al !e!bers) that what ha%%ens in history is the Glar-ely "n%lanned and "nforeseeableH res"lt of the actions of s"ch individ"als) and that lar-e scale social %lannin- to an antecedently conceived bl"e%rint is inherently !isconceived A and inevitably disastro"s A %recisely beca"se h"!an actions have conse7"ences which cannot be foreseen. Po%%er) then) is an historical indeter#inist) insofar as he holds that history does not evolve in accordance with intrinsic laws or %rinci%les) that in the absence of s"ch laws and %rinci%les "nconditional %rediction in the social sciences is an i!%ossibility) and that there is no s"ch thin- as historical necessity. The lin5 between Po%%er's theory of 5nowled-e and his social %hiloso%hy is his fallibilis! A j"st as we !a5e theoretical %ro-ress in science by deliberately s"bjectino"r theories to critical scr"tiny) and abandonin- those which have been falsified) so too) Po%%er holds) the critical s%irit can and sho"ld be s"stained at the social level. 'ore s%ecifically) the o%en society can be bro"-ht abo"t only if it is %ossible for the individ"al citiIen to eval"ate critically the conse7"ences of the i!%le!entation of -overn!ent %olicies) which can then be abandoned or !odified in the li-ht of s"ch critical scr"tiny A in s"ch a society) the ri-hts of the individ"al to criticise ad!inistrative %olicies will be for!ally safe-"arded and "%held) "ndesirable %olicies will be eli!inated in a !anner analo-o"s to the eli!ination of falsified scientific theories) and differences between %eo%le on social %olicy will be resolved by critical disc"ssion and ar-"!ent rather than

by force. The o%en society as th"s conceived of by Po%%er !ay be defined as 3an association of free individ"als res%ectin- each other's ri-hts within the fra!ewor5 of !"t"al %rotection s"%%lied by the state) and achievin-) thro"-h the !a5in- of res%onsible) rational decisions) a -rowin- !eas"re of h"!ane and enli-htened life4 G(evinson) R.#. 0n *e(ense o( .lato) 9BH. As s"ch) Po%%er holds) it is not a "to%ian ideal) b"t an e!%irically realised for! of social or-anisation which) he ar-"es) is in every res%ect s"%erior to its Greal or %otentialH totalitarian rivals. #"t he does not en-a-e in a !oral defence of the ideolo-y of liberalis!6 rather his strate-y is the !"ch dee%er one of showin- that totalitarianis! is ty%ically based "%on historicist and holist %res"%%ositions) and of de!onstratin- that these %res"%%ositions are f"nda!entally incoherent. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

,. (cientific Kno!ledge% "istor$% and Prediction

At a very -eneral level) Po%%er ar-"es that historicis! and holis! have their ori-ins in what he ter!s 3one of the oldest drea!s of !an5ind A the drea! of %ro%hecy) the idea that we can 5now what the f"t"re has in store for "s) and that we can %rofit fro! s"ch 5nowled-e by adj"stin- o"r %olicy to it.4 G7on6ectures and e(utations) ::CH. This drea! was -iven f"rther i!%et"s) he s%ec"lates) by the e!er-ence of a -en"ine %redictive ca%ability re-ardin- s"ch events as solar and l"nar ecli%ses at an early sta-e in h"!an civilisation) which has of co"rse beco!e increasin-ly refined with the develo%!ent of the nat"ral sciences and their conco!itant technolo-ies. The 5ind of reasonin- which has !ade) and contin"es to !a5e) historicis! %la"sible !ay) on this acco"nt) be reconstr"cted as follows8 if the a%%lication of the laws of the nat"ral sciences can lead to the s"ccessf"l %rediction of s"ch f"t"re events as ecli%ses) then s"rely it is reasonable to infer that 5nowled-e of the laws of history as yielded by a social science or sciences Gass"!in- that s"ch laws eFistH wo"ld lead to the s"ccessf"l %rediction of s"ch f"t"re social %heno!ena as revol"tionsN Why sho"ld it be %ossible to %redict an ecli%se) b"t not a revol"tionN Why can we not conceive of a social science which co"ld and wo"ld f"nction as the theoretical nat"ral sciences f"nction) and yield %recise "nconditional %redictions in the a%%ro%riate s%here of a%%licationN These are a!on-st the 7"estions which Po%%er see5s to answer) and in doin- so) to show that they are based "%on a series of !isconce%tions abo"t the nat"re of science) and abo"t the relationshi% between scientific laws and scientific %rediction. $is first ar-"!ent !ay be s"!!arised as follows8 in relation to the critically i!%ortant conce%t of %rediction) Po%%er !a5es a distinction between what he ter!s 3conditional scientific %redictions4) which have the for! 3 f 3 ta5es %lace) then 4 will ta5e %lace4) and 3"nconditional scientific %ro%hecies4) which have the for! 34 will ta5e %lace4. Contrary to %o%"lar belief) it is the for!er rather than the latter which are ty%ical of the nat"ral sciences) which !eans that ty%ically %rediction in nat"ral science is conditional and li!ited in sco%e A it ta5es the for! of hy%othetical assertions statin- that certain s%ecified chan-es will co!e abo"t if %artic"lar s%ecified events antecedently ta5e %lace. This is not to deny that 3"nconditional scientific %ro%hecies4) s"ch as the %rediction of ecli%ses) for eFa!%le) do ta5e %lace in science) and that the theoretical nat"ral sciences !a5e the! %ossible. $owever) Po%%er ar-"es that GaH these "nconditional %ro%hecies are

not characteristic of the nat"ral sciences) and GbH that the !echanis! whereby they occ"r) in the very li!ited way in which they do) is not "nderstood by the historicist. What is the !echanis! which !a5es "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies %ossibleN The answer is that s"ch %ro%hecies can so!eti!es be derived fro! a co!bination of conditional %redictions Gthe!selves derived fro! scientific lawsH and eFistential state!ents s%ecifyin- that the conditions in relation to the syste! bein- investi-ated are f"lfilled. Sche!atically) this can be re%resented as follows8 KC.P. U E.S.LO*.P. where C.P. O Conditional Prediction6 E.S. O EFistential State!ent6 *.P. O *nconditional Pro%hecy. The !ost co!!on eFa!%les of "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies in science relate to the %rediction of s"ch %heno!ena as l"nar and solar ecli%ses and co!ets. =iven) then) that this is the !echanis! which -enerates "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies) Po%%er !a5es two related clai!s abo"t historicis!8 GaH That the historicist does not in fact derive his "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies in this !anner fro! conditional %redictions) and GbH the historicist cannot do so beca"se lon-,ter! "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies can be derived fro! conditional %redictions only if they a%%ly to syste!s which are well,isolated) stationary) and rec"rrent Gli5e o"r solar syste!H. S"ch syste!s are 7"ite rare in nat"re) and h"!an society is !ost e!%hatically not one of the!. This) then) Po%%er ar-"es) is the reason why it is a f"nda!ental !ista5e for the historicist to ta5e the "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies of ecli%ses as bein- ty%ical and characteristic of the %redictions of nat"ral science A in fact s"ch %redictions are %ossible only beca"se o"r solar syste! is a stationary and re%etitive syste! which is isolated fro! other s"ch syste!s by i!!ense eF%anses of e!%ty s%ace. The solar syste! aside) there are very few s"ch syste!s aro"nd for scientific investi-ation A !ost of the others are confined to the field of biolo-y) where "nconditional %ro%hecies abo"t the life,cycles of or-anis!s are !ade %ossible by the eFistence of %recisely the sa!e factors. Th"s one of the fallacies co!!itted by the historicist is to ta5e the Grelatively rareH instances of "nconditional %ro%hecies in the nat"ral science as constit"tin- the essence of what scientific %rediction is) to fail to see that s"ch %ro%hecies a%%ly only to syste!s which are isolated) stationary) and re%etitive) and to see5 to a%%ly the !ethod of scientific %ro%hecy to h"!an society and h"!an history. The latter) of co"rse) is not an isolated syste! Gin fact it's not a syste! at allH) it is constantly chan-in-) and it contin"ally "nder-oes ra%id) non,re%etitive develo%!ent. n the !ost f"nda!ental sense %ossible) every event in h"!an history is discrete) novel) 7"ite "ni7"e) and ontolo-ically distinct fro! every other historical event. For this reason) it is i!%ossible in %rinci%le that "nconditional scientific %ro%hecies co"ld be !ade in relation to h"!an history A the idea that the s"ccessf"l "nconditional %rediction of ecli%ses %rovides "s with reasonable -ro"nds for the ho%e of s"ccessf"l "nconditional %rediction re-ardin- the evol"tion of h"!an history t"rns o"t to be based "%on a -ross !isconce%tion) and is 7"ite false. As Po%%er hi!self concl"des) SThe fact that we %redict ecli%ses does not) therefore) %rovide a valid reason for eF%ectin-

that we can %redict revol"tions.S G7on6ectures and e(utations) :<2H. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

-. .mmutable La!s and *ontingent Trends

This ar-"!ent is one of the stron-est that has ever been bro"-ht a-ainst historicis!) c"ttin-) as it does) ri-ht to the heart of one of its !ain theoretical %res"%%ositions. $owever) it is not Po%%er's only ar-"!ent a-ainst it. An additional !ista5e which he detects in historicis! is the fail"re of the historicist to distin-"ish between scientific la5s and trends) which is also fre7"ently acco!%anied by a si!%le lo-ical fallacy. The fallacy is that of inferrin- fro! the fact that o"r "nderstandin- of any G%astH historical event A s"ch as) for eFa!%le) the French Revol"tion A is in direct %ro%ortion to o"r 5nowled-e of the antecedent conditions which led to that event) that 5nowled-e of all the antecedent conditions of so!e f"t"re event is %ossible) and that s"ch 5nowled-e wo"ld !a5e that f"t"re event %recisely %redictable. For the tr"th is that the n"!ber of factors which %redate and lead to the occ"rrence of any event) %ast) %resent) or f"t"re) is indefinitely lar-e) and therefore 5nowled-e of all of these factors is i!%ossible) even in %rinci%le. What -ives rise to the fallacy is the !anner in which the historian GnecessarilyH selectively isolates a finite n"!ber of the antecedent conditions of so!e %ast event as bein- of %artic"lar i!%ortance) which are then so!ewhat !isleadin-ly ter!ed 3the ca"ses4 of that event) when in fact what this !eans is that they are the s%ecific conditions which a %artic"lar historian or -ro"% of historians ta5e to be !ore relevant than any other of the indefinitely lar-e n"!ber of s"ch conditions Gfor this reason) !ost historical debates ran-e over the 7"estion as to whether the conditions th"s s%ecified are the ri!ht onesH. While this 5ind of selectivity !ay be j"stifiable in relation to the treat!ent of any %ast event) it has no basis whatsoever in relation to the f"t"re A if we now select) as 'arF did) the 3relevant4 antecedent conditions for so!e f"t"re event) the li5elihood is that we will select wron-ly. The historicist's fail"re to distin-"ish between scientific laws and trends is e7"ally destr"ctive of his ca"se. This fail"re !a5es hi! thin5 it %ossible to eF%lain chan-e by discoverin- trends r"nnin- thro"-h %ast history) and to antici%ate and %redict f"t"re occ"rrences on the basis of s"ch observations. $ere Po%%er %oints o"t that there is a critical difference between a trend and a scientific law) the fail"re to observe which is fatal. For a scientific law is "niversal in for!) while a trend can be eF%ressed only as a sin-"lar eFistential state!ent. This lo-ical difference is cr"cial beca"se "nconditional %redictions) as we have already seen) can be based only "%on conditional ones) which the!selves !"st be derived fro! scientific laws. Neither conditional nor "nconditional %redictions can be based "%on trends) beca"se these !ay chan-e or be reversed with a chan-e in the conditions which -ave rise to the! in the first instance. As Po%%er %"ts it) there can be no do"bt that Sthe habit of conf"sin- trends with laws) to-ether with the int"itive observation of trends s"ch as technical %ro-ress) ins%ired the central doctrines of T historicis!.S GThe .overt" o( /istoricis#) 99@H. Po%%er does not) of co"rse) dis%"te the eFistence of trends) nor does he deny that the observation of trends can be of %ractical "tility val"e A b"t the essential %oint is that a trend is so!ethin- which itsel( "lti!ately

stands in need of scientific eF%lanation) and it cannot therefore f"nction as the fra!e of reference in ter!s of which anythin- else can be scientifically eF%lained or %redicted. A %oint which connects with this has to do with the role which the evol"tion of h"!an 5nowled-e has %layed in the historical develo%!ent of h"!an society. t is incontestable that) as 'arF hi!self observed) there has been a ca"sal lin5 between the two) in the sense that advances in scientific and technolo-ical 5nowled-e have -iven rise to wides%read -lobal chan-es in %atterns of h"!an social or-anisation and social interaction) which in t"rn have led to social str"ct"res Ge.-. ed"cational syste!sH which f"rther -rowth in h"!an 5nowled-e. n short) the evol"tion of h"!an history has been stron-ly infl"enced by the !ro5th o( hu#an 'no5led!e) and it is eFtre!ely li5ely that this will contin"e to be the case A all the e!%irical evidence s"--ests that the lin5 between the two is %ro-ressively consolidatin-. $owever) this -ives rise to f"rther %roble!s for the historicist. n the first %lace) the state!ent that 3if there is s"ch a thin- as -rowin- h"!an 5nowled-e) then we cannot antici%ate today what we shall 5now only to!orrow4 is) Po%%er holds) int"itively hi-hly %la"sible. 'oreover) he ar-"es) it is lo-ically de!onstrable by a consideration of the i!%lications of the fact that no scientific %redictor) h"!an or otherwise) can %ossibly %redict) by scientific !ethods) its own f"t"re res"lts. Fro! this it follows) he holds) that 3no society can %redict) scientifically) its own f"t"re states of 5nowled-e4. GThe .overt" o( /istoricis#) viiH. Th"s) while the f"t"re evol"tion of h"!an history is eFtre!ely li5ely to be infl"enced by new develo%!ents in h"!an 5nowled-e) as it always has in the %ast) we cannot now scientifically deter!ine what s"ch 5nowled-e will be. Fro! this it follows that if the f"t"re holds any new discoveries or any new develo%!ents in the -rowth of o"r 5nowled-e Gand -iven the fallible nat"re of the latter) it is inconceivable that it does notH) then it is i!%ossible for "s to %redict the! now) and it is therefore i!%ossible for "s to %redict the f"t"re develo%!ent of h"!an history now) -iven that the latter will) at least in %art) be deter!ined by the f"t"re -rowth of o"r 5nowled-e. Th"s once a-ain historicis! colla%ses A the drea! of a theoretical) %redictive science of history is "nrealisable) beca"se it is an i!%ossible drea!. Po%%er's ar-"!ents a-ainst holis!) and in %artic"lar his ar-"!ents a-ainst the %ro%riety of lar-e,scale %lannin- of social str"ct"res) are interconnected with his de!onstration of the lo-ical shortco!in-s of the %res"%%ositions of historicis!. S"ch %lannin- Gwhich act"ally too5 %lace) of co"rse) in the *SSR) in China) and in Ca!bodia) for eFa!%le) "nder totalitarian re-i!es which acce%ted for!s of historicis! and holis!H) Po%%er %oints o"t) is necessarily str"ct"red in the li-ht of the %redictions which have been !ade abo"t f"t"re history on the basis of the so,called 3laws4 which historicists s"ch as 'arF and 'ao clai!ed to have discovered in relation to h"!an history. Accordin-ly) reco-nition that there are no s"ch laws) and that "nconditional %redictions abo"t f"t"re history are based) at best) "%on nothin- !ore s"bstantial than the observation of contin-ent trends) shows that) fro! a %"rely theoretical as well as a %ractical %oint of view) lar-e,scale social %lannin- is indeed a reci%e for disaster. n s"!!ary) "nconditional lar-e,scale %lannin- for the f"t"re is theoretically as well as %ractically !is-"ided) beca"se) a-ain) %art of what we are %lannin- for is o"r f"t"re 5nowled-e) and o"r f"t"re 5nowled-e is not so!ethin- which we can in %rinci%le now %ossess A we

cannot ade7"ately %lan for "neF%ected advances in o"r f"t"re 5nowled-e) or for the effects which s"ch advances will have "%on society as a whole. The acce%tance of historical indeter!inis!) then) as the only %hiloso%hy of history which is co!!ens"rate with a %ro%er "nderstandin- of the nat"re of scientific 5nowled-e) fatally "nder!ines both historicis! and holis!. Po%%er's criti7"e of both historicis! and holis! is balanced) on the %ositive side) by his stron- defence of the o%en society) the view) a-ain) that a society is e7"ivalent to the s"! of its !e!bers) that the actions of the !e!bers of society serve to fashion and to sha%e it) not conversely) and that the social conse7"ences of intentional actions are very often) and very lar-ely) "nintentional. This is why Po%%er hi!self advocates what he Grather "nfort"natelyH ter!s 3%iece!eal social en-ineerin-4 as the central !echanis! for social %lannin- A for in "tilisin- this !echanis! intentional actions are directed to the achieve!ent of one s%ecific -oal at a ti!e) which !a5es it %ossible to !onitor the sit"ation to deter!ine whether adverse "nintended effects of intentional actions occ"r) in order to correct and readj"st when this %roves necessary. This) of co"rse) %arallels %recisely the critical testin- of theories in scientific investi-ation. This a%%roach to social %lannin- Gwhich is eF%licitly based "%on the %re!ise that we do not) beca"se we cannot) 5now what the f"t"re will be li5eH enco"ra-es atte!%ts to %"t ri-ht what is %roble!atic in society A -enerally,ac5nowled-ed social ills A rather than atte!%ts to i!%ose so!e %reconceived idea of the 3-ood4 "%on society as a whole. For this reason) in a -en"inely o%en society %iece!eal social en-ineerin- -oes hand,in,hand for Po%%er with ne!ative "tilitarianis! Gthe atte!%t to !ini!ise the a!o"nt of !isery) rather than) as with %ositive "tilitarianis!) the atte!%t to !aFi!ise the a!o"nt of ha%%inessH. The state) he holds) sho"ld concern itself with the tas5 of %ro-ressively for!"latin- and i!%le!entin%olicies desi-ned to deal with the social %roble!s which act"ally confront it) with the -oal of eli!inatin- h"!an !isery and s"fferin- to the hi-hest %ossible de-ree. The %ositive tas5 of increasin- social and %ersonal ha%%iness) by contrast) can and sho"ld be sho"ld be left to individ"al citiIens Gwho !ay) of co"rse) act collectively to this endH) who) "nli5e the state) have at least a chance of achievin- this -oal) b"t who in a free society are rarely in a %osition to syste!atically s"bvert the ri-hts of others in the %"rs"it of idealised objectives. Th"s in the final analysis for Po%%er the activity of %roble!, solvin- is as definitive of o"r h"!anity at the level of social and %olitical or-anisation as it is at the level of science) and it is this 5ey insi-ht which "nifies and inte-rates the broad s%ectr"! of his tho"-ht. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

/. *ritical 01aluation
While it cannot be said that Po%%er was a !odest !an) he too5 criticis! of his theories very serio"sly) and s%ent !"ch of his ti!e in his later years endeavo"rin- to show that s"ch criticis!s were either based "%on !is"nderstandin-s) or that his theories co"ld) witho"t loss of inte-rity) be !ade co!%atible with new and i!%ortant insi-hts. The followin- is a s"!!ary of so!e of the !ain criticis!s which he has had to address. GFor Po%%er's res%onses to critical co!!entary) see his 3Re%lies to 'y Critics4) in P.A.

Schil%% Ged.H) The .hilosoph" o( %arl .opper) ?ol"!e 1) and his ealis# and the -i# o( )cience) edited by W.W. #artley .H 9. Po%%er %rofesses to be anti,conventionalist) and his co!!it!ent to the corres%ondence theory of tr"th %laces hi! fir!ly within the realist's ca!%. /et) followin- 0ant) he stron-ly re%"diates the %ositivistMe!%iricist view that basic state!ents Gi.e.) %resent,tense observation state!ents abo"t sense,dataH are infallible) and ar-"es convincin-ly that s"ch basic state!ents are not !ere 3re%orts4 of %assively re-istered sensations. Rather they are descri%tions of what is observed as inter%reted by the observer with reference to a deter!inate theoretical fra!ewor5. This is why Po%%er re%eatedly e!%hasises that basic state!ents are not infallible) and it indicates what he !eans when he says that they are 3theory laden4 A %erce%tion itself is an active %rocess) in which the !ind assi!ilates data by reference to an ass"!ed theoretical bac5dro%. $e accordin-ly asserts that basic state!ents the!selves are o%en,ended hy%otheses8 they have a certain ca"sal relationshi% with eF%erience) b"t they are not deter#ined by eF%erience) and they cannot be verified or confir!ed by eF%erience. $owever) this %oses a diffic"lty re-ardin- the consistency of Po%%er's theory8 if a theory 3 is to be -en"inely testable Gand so scientificH it !"st be %ossible to deter!ine whether or not the basic %ro%ositions which wo"ld) if tr"e) falsify it) are actuall" tr"e or false Gi.e.) whether its %otential falsifiers are act"al falsifiersH. #"t how can this be 5nown) if s"ch basic state!ents cannot be verified by eF%erienceN Po%%er's answer is that 3basic state!ents are not j"stifiable by o"r i!!ediate eF%eriences) b"t are T acce%ted by an act) a free decision4. G&o!ic o( )cienti(ic *iscover") 92DH. $owever) and notwithstandin- Po%%er's clai!s to the contrary) this itself see!s to be a refined for! of conventionalis! A it i!%lies that it is al!ost entirely an arbitrary !atter whether it is acce%ted that a %otential falsifier is an act"al one) and conse7"ently that the falsification of a theory is itself the f"nction of a 3free4 and arbitrary act. t also see!s very diffic"lt to reconcile this with Po%%er's view that science %ro-ressively !oves closer to the tr"th) conceived of in ter!s of the corres%ondence theory) for this 5ind of conventionalis! is ini!ical to this GclassicalH conce%tion of tr"th. 1. As (a5atos has %ointed o"t) Po%%er's theory of de!arcation hin-es 7"ite f"nda!entally on the ass"!%tion that there are s"ch thin-s as critical tests) which either falsify a theory) or -ive it a stron- !eas"re of corroboration. Po%%er hi!self is fond of citin-) as an eFa!%le of s"ch a critical test) the resol"tion) by Ada!s and (everrier) of the %roble! which the ano!alo"s orbit of *ran"s %osed for nineteenth cent"ry astrono!ers. #oth !en inde%endently ca!e to the concl"sion that) ass"!in- Newtonian !echanics to be %recisely correct) the observed diver-ence in the elli%tical orbit of *ran"s co"ld be eF%lained if the eFistence of a seventh) as yet "nobserved o"ter %lanet was %osited. F"rther) they were able) a-ain within the fra!ewor5 of Newtonian !echanics) to calc"late the %recise %osition of the 3new4 %lanet. Th"s when s"bse7"ent research by =alle at the #erlin observatory revealed that s"ch a %lanet GNe%t"neH did in fact eFist) and was sit"ated %recisely where Ada!s and (everrier had calc"lated) this was hailed as by all and s"ndry as a !a-nificent tri"!%h for Newtonian %hysics8 in Po%%erian ter!s) Newton's theory had been s"bjected to a critical test) and had %assed with flyin- colo"rs. Po%%er hi!self refers to this stron- corroboration of Newtonian %hysics as 3the !ost startlin- and convincin- s"ccess of any h"!an intellect"al achieve!ent4. /et (a5atos

flatly denies that there are critical tests) in the Po%%erian sense) in science) and ar-"es the %oint convincin-ly by t"rnin- the above eFa!%le of an alle-ed critical test on its head. What) he as5s) wo"ld have ha%%ened if =alle had not fo"nd the %lanet Ne%t"neN Wo"ld Newtonian %hysics have been abandoned) or wo"ld Newton's theory have been falsifiedN The answer is clearly not) for =alle's fail"re co"ld have been attrib"ted to any n"!ber of ca"ses other than the falsity of Newtonian %hysics Ge.-.) the interference of the earth's at!os%here with the telesco%e) the eFistence of an asteroid belt which hides the new %lanet fro! the earth) etcH. The %oint here is that the 3falsificationMcorroboration4 disj"nction offered by Po%%er is far too lo-ically neat8 non,corroboration is not necessaril" falsification) and falsification of a hi-h,level scientific theory is never bro"-ht abo"t by an isolated observation or set of observations. S"ch theories are) it is now -enerally acce%ted) hi-hly resistant to falsification. They are falsified) if at all) (a5atos ar-"es) not by Po%%erian critical tests) b"t rather within the elaborate conteFt of the research %ro-ra!!es associated with the! -rad"ally -rindin- to a halt) with the res"lt that an ever,widenin- -a% o%ens "% between the facts to be eF%lained) and the research %ro-ra!!es the!selves. G(a5atos) . The Methodolo!" o( )cienti(ic esearch .ro!ra##es) %assi!H. Po%%er's distinction between the lo-ic of falsifiability and its a%%lied !ethodolo-y does not in the end do f"ll j"stice to the fact that all hi-h,level theories -row and live des%ite the eFistence of ano!alies Gi.e.) eventsM%heno!ena which are inco!%atible with the theoriesH. The eFistence of s"ch ano!alies is not "s"ally ta5en by the wor5in- scientist as an indication that the theory in 7"estion is false6 on the contrary) he will "s"ally) and necessarily) ass"!e that the a"Filiary hy%otheses which are associated with the theory can be !odified to incor%orate) and eF%lain) eFistinano!alies. :. Scientific laws are eF%ressed by "niversal state!ents Gi.e.) they ta5e the lo-ical for! 3All -s are 34) or so!e e7"ivalentH which are therefore concealed conditionals A they have to be "nderstood as hy%othetical state!ents assertin- what wo"ld be the case "nder certain ideal conditions. n the!selves they are not e9istential in nat"re. Th"s 3All -s are 34 !eans 3 f anythin- is an -) then it is 34. Since scientific laws are non,eFistential in nat"re) they lo-ically cannot i!%ly any basic state!ents) since the latter are eF%licitly eFistential. The 7"estion arises) then) as to how any basic state!ent can falsify a scientific law) -iven that basic state!ents are not ded"cible fro! scientific laws in the!selvesN Po%%er answers that scientific laws are always ta5en in con6unction 5ith state!ents o"tlinin- the 3initial conditions4 of the syste! "nder investi-ation6 these latter) which are sin-"lar eFistential state!ents) do) when co!bined with the scientific law) yield hard and fast i!%lications. Th"s) the law 3All -s are 34) to-ether with the initial condition state!ent 3There is an - at 44) yields the i!%lication 3The - at 4 is 34) which) if false) falsifies the ori-inal law. This re%ly is ade7"ate only if it is tr"e) as Po%%er ass"!es) that sin!ular eFistential state!ents will always do the wor5 of brid-in- the -a% between a "niversal theory and a %rediction. $ilary P"tna! in %artic"lar has ar-"ed that this ass"!%tion is false) in that in so!e cases at least the state!ents re7"ired to brid-e this -a% Gwhich he calls 3a"Filiary hy%otheses4H are -eneral rather than %artic"lar) and conse7"ently that when the %rediction t"rns o"t to be false we have no way of 5nowin- whether this is d"e to the falsity of the

scientific law or the falsity of the a"Filiary hy%otheses. The wor5in- scientist) P"tna! ar-"es) always initially ass"!es that it is the latter) which shows not only that scientific laws are) contra Po%%er) hi-hly resistant to falsification) b"t also why they are so hi-hly resistant to falsification. Po%%er's final %osition is that he ac5nowled-es that it is i!%ossible to discri!inate science fro! non,science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific state!ents alone6 he reco-niIes that scientific theories are %redictive) and conse7"ently %rohibitive) onl" when ta5en in conj"nction with a"Filiary hy%otheses) and he also reco-niIes that readj"st!ent or !odification of the latter is an inte-ral %art of scientific %ractice. $ence his final concern is to o"tline conditions which indicate when s"ch !odification is -en"inely scientific) and when it is !erely ad hoc. This is itself clearly a !ajor alteration in his %osition) and ar-"ably re%resents a s"bstantial retraction on his %art8 'arFis! can no lon-er be dis!issed as 3"nscientific4 si!%ly beca"se its advocates %reserved the theory fro! falsification by !odifyin- it Gfor in -eneral ter!s) s"ch a %roced"re) it now trans%ires) is %erfectly res%ectable scientific %racticeH. t is now conde!ned as "nscientific by Po%%er beca"se the only rationale for the !odifications which were !ade to the ori-inal theory was to ens"re that it evaded falsification) and so s"ch !odifications were ad hoc) rather than scientific. This contention A tho"-h not at all i!%la"sible A has) to hostile eyes) a so!ewhat contrived air abo"t it) and is "nli5ely to worry the convinced 'arFist. +n the other hand) the shift in Po%%er's own basic %osition is ta5en by so!e critics as an indicator that falsificationis!) for all its a%%arent !erits) fares no better in the final analysis than verificationis!. KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

Bibliograph$
2orks B$ Popper

&o!i' der Forschun!. E"li"s S%rin-er ?erla-) ?ienna) 9D:>. The Open )ociet" and 0ts 1ne#ies. G1 ?olsH. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9D<>. The &o!ic o( )cienti(ic *iscover". Gtranslation of &o!i' der Forschun!H. $"tchinson) (ondon) 9D>D. 7on6ectures and e(utations: The ;ro5th o( )cienti(ic %no5led!e. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9D@:. The .overt" o( /istoricis# G1nd. edH. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9D@9. Ob6ective %no5led!e: -n 1volutionar" -pproach. Clarendon Press) +Fford) 9DB1. +nended ,uest; -n 0ntellectual -utobio!raph". Fontana) (ondon) 9DB@. 3A Note on ?erisi!ilit"de4) The <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 2,) 9DB@) 9<B,9>D. The )el( and 0ts <rain: -n -r!u#ent (or 0nteractionis# Gwith E.C. EcclesH. S%rin-er nternational) (ondon) 9DBB. The Open +niverse: -n -r!u#ent (or 0ndeter#inis#. Ged. W.W. #artley 999H. $"tchinson) (ondon) 9DC1.

ealis# and the -i# o( )cience. Ged. W.W. #artley H. (ondon) $"tchinson) 9DC:. The M"th o( the Fra#e5or': 0n *e(ence o( )cience and ationalit". Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9DD<. %no5led!e and the Mind2<od" .roble#: 0n *e(ence o( 0nteractionis#. Ged. '.A. Nott"rnoH. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9DD<.

2orks b$ 3ther 4uthors

Ac5er!ann) R. The .hilosoph" o( %arl .opper. *niversity of 'assach"setts Press) A!herst) 9DB@. #a!bro"-h) R. GedH. .lato, .opper, and .olitics: )o#e 7ontributions to a Modern 7ontrovers". #arnes and Noble) New /or5) 9D@B. #a"doin) E. %arl .opper. P*F) Paris) 9DCD. #rin5) C. V $eide!a) E. 3A ?erisi!ilar +rderin- of Theories Phrased in a Pro%ositional (an-"a-e4) <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 3-) 9DCB) >::,><D. #rin5) C. 3?erisi!ilit"de8 ?iews and Reviews4) /istor" and .hilosoph" o( &o!ic 15) 9DCD) 9C9,129. #rin5) C. V #ritI) 0. 3Co!%"tin- ?erisi!ilit"de4) Notre *a#e =ournal o( For#al &o!ic 3') 9) 9DD>) :9,<:. #"n-e) '. GedH. The 7ritical -pproach to )cience and .hilosoph". The Free Press) (ondon V New /or5) 9D@<. #"r5e) T.E. The .hilosoph" o( .opper. 'anchester *niversity Press) 'anchester) 9DC:. Carr) E.$. $hat is /istor"> 'ac!illan) (ondon) 9D@1. Cornforth) '. The Open .hilosoph" and the Open )ociet": - epl" to *r? .opper@s e(utations o( Mar9is#. (awrence V Wishart) (ondon) 9D@C. Corvi) R. -n 0ntroduction to the Thou!ht o( %arl .opper. Gtrans. P. Ca!illerH. Ro"tled-e) (ondon V New /or5) 9DDB. C"rrie) =. V '"s-rave) A. GedsH. .opper and the /u#an )ciences. Nijhoff) ;ordrecht) 9DC>. Ed!onds) ;. and Eidinow) E. Witt!enstein@s .o'er: The )tor" o( a Ten2Minute -r!u#ent <et5een T5o ;reat .hilosophers? New /or58 $ar%er V Collins) 1229 Feyerabend) P. -!ainst Method. New (eft #oo5s) (ondon) 9DB>. =rRnba"!) A. 3 s the 'ethod of #old Conject"res and Atte!%ted Ref"tations E"stifiably the 'ethod of ScienceN4) <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 2,) 9DB@) 92>,9:@. $"!e) ;. - Treatise o( /u#an Nature) in The .hilosophical $or's Ged. T.$. =reen V T.$. =roseH) < vols Gre%rint of 9CC@ editionH. Scientia ?erla- Aalen) ;ar!stadt) 9D@<. Eacobs) S. )cience and <ritish &iberalis#: &oc'e, <entha#, Mill and .opper. Aveb"ry) Aldershot) 9DD9. Ea!es) R. eturn to eason: .opper@s Thou!ht in .ublic &i(e. +%en #oo5s) She%ton 'allet) 9DC2.

Eohannson) . - 7ritiAue o( %arl .opper@s Methodolo!". Scandinavian *niversity #oo5s) Stoc5hol!) 9DB>. 0e5es) E. 3Po%%er in Pers%ective4) Metaphilosoph" C G9DBBH) %%. :@,@9. 0e"th) $. 3?erisi!ilit"de or the A%%roach to the Whole Tr"th4) .hilosoph" o( )cience 9DB@) :99,::@. 0"i%ers) T. A. F. 3A%%roachin- ;escri%tive and Theoretical Tr"th4) 1r'enntnis 1-) 9DC1) :<:,:BC. 0"i%ers) T. A. F.) GedH. $hat is 7loser2to2the2Truth>) Rodo%i) A!sterda!) 9DCB. 0"hn) T.S. The )tructure o( )cienti(ic evolutions. *niversity of Chica-o Press) Chica-o and (ondon) 9D@1. (a5atos) . 3Falsification and the 'ethodolo-y of Scientific Research Pro-ra!!es4) in (a5atos) V '"s-rove) A. GedsH. 7riticis# and the ;ro5th o( %no5led!e. Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) Ca!brid-e) 9DB2. (a5atos) . The Methodolo!" o( )cienti(ic esearch .ro!ra##es) Ged. E. Worrall V =. C"rrieH. Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) 9DBC. (a5atos) V '"s-rove) A. GedsH. 7riticis# and the ;ro5th o( %no5led!e. Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) Ca!brid-e) 9DB2. (a"dan) (. .ro!ress and 0ts .roble#s: To5ards a Theor" o( )cienti(ic ;ro5th. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9DBB. (evinson) P. Ged.H. 0n .ursuit o( Truth? 1ssa"s in /onour o( %arl .opper on the Occasion o( his B0th <irthda". $"!anities Press) Atlantic $i-hlands) 9DC1. (evinson) R.#. 0n *e(ense o( .lato. Ca!brid-e *niversity Press) Ca!brid-e) 9D>B. 'a-ee) #. .opper. Fontana) (ondon) 9DBB. 'ellor) ;.$. 3The Po%%er Pheno!enon4) .hilosoph" >1 G9DBBH) %%. 9D>,121. 'iller) ;. 3+n the Co!%arison of False Theories by their #ases4) The <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 2#) 9DB<) 9BC,9CC. 'iller) ;. 3Po%%er's W"alitative Theory of ?erisi!ilit"de4) The <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 2#) 9DB<) 9@@,9BB. 'iller) ;. 7ritical ationalis#: - estate#ent and *e(ence) +%en Co"rt) Chica-o) 9DD<. '"nI) P. Our %no5led!e o( the ;ro5th o( %no5led!e: .opper or $itt!enstein> Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9DC>. Naydler) E. 3The Poverty of Po%%eris!4) Tho#ist <@ G9DC1H) %%. D1,92B. Niinil"oto) . Truthli'eness) Reidel) ;ordrecht) 9DCB. +ddie) =. &i'eness to Truth) Reidel) ;ordrecht) 9DC@. +'$ear) A. %arl .opper. Ro"tled-e) (ondon) 9DC2. P"tna!) $. 3The Corroboration of Theories4) in The .hilosoph" o( %arl .opper Ged. P.A. Schil%%H. +%en Co"rt Press) (a Salle) 9DB<. W"inton) A. 3Po%%er) 0arl Rai!"nd4) in 1nc"clopedia o( .hilosoph") vol. @ Ged. P. EdwardsH. Collier 'ac!illan) New /or5) 9D@B. RadnitI5y) =. V Andersson) =. GedsH. .ro!ress and ationalit" in )cience. Reidel) ;ordrecht) 9DBC. RadnitI5y) =. V #artley) W.W. GedsH. 1volutionar" 1piste#olo!", ationalit", and the )ociolo!" o( %no5led!e. +%en Co"rt) (a Salle) 9DCB.

Shear!"r) E. .olitical Thou!ht o( %arl .opper. (ondon V New /or58 Ro"tled-e) 9DD@. Si!5in) C. .opper@s 8ie5s on Natural and )ocial )cience. #rill) (eiden) 9DD:. Sto5es) =. .opper: .hilosoph", .olitics and )cienti(ic Method. Polity Press) 9DDC. Stove) ;. .opper and -(ter: Four Modern 0rrationalists. Per-a!on Press) +Fford) 9DC1. Schil%%) P.A. GedH The .hilosoph" o( %arl .opper. G1 ?olsH. +%en Co"rt Press) (a Salle) 9DB<. TichQ) P. 3+n Po%%er's ;efinitions of ?erisi!ilit"de4) The <ritish =ournal (or the .hilosoph" o( )cience 2#) 9DB<) 9>>,9@2 TichQ) P. 3 ?erisi!ilit"de Revisited4) SynthXse 3-) 9DBC) 9B>,9D@. ?etter) $. 3A New Conce%t of ?erisi!ilit"de4) Theor" and *ecision -) 9DBB) :@D, :B>. Wat5ins) E. )cience and )cepticis#) Princeton *niversity Press and $"tchinson) Princeton and (ondon) 9DC<. Wat5ins) E. 3Po%%erian deas on Pro-ress and Rationality in Science4) The 7ritical ationalist) ?ol. 1 No. 1) E"ne 9DDB. Wil5ins) #.T. /as /istor" -n" Meanin!> - 7ritiAue o( .opper@s .hilosoph" o( /istor". $assoc5sMCornell *niversity PressMThe $arvester Press) thaca) 9DBC. Willia!s) ;.E. Truth, /ope and .o5er: The Thou!ht o( %arl .opper. *niversity of Toronto Press) Toronto) 9DCD. W"5etits) F.'. 7oncepts and -pproaches in 1volutionar" 1piste#olo!": To5ards an 1volutionar" Theor" o( %no5led!e. Reidel) ;ordrecht) 9DC<.

KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

3ther .nternet 6esources

The 0arl Po%%er Web. +%en *niverse of the Ea%an Po%%er Society. nstit"t Wiener 0reis) website of the Society for the Advance!ent of the Scientific World Conce%tion. Abstracts of Pa%ers) %resented at the 0arl Po%%er 1221 Centenary Con-ress in ?ienna. SPo%%er) 0arl Rai!"ndS) by Peter '"nI in the ;ictionary of New Jealand #io-ra%hy.

KRet"rn to Section $eadin-sL

6elated 0ntries
confir!ation Y Feyerabend) Pa"l Y $"!e) ;avid Y ind"ction8 %roble! of Y 0"hn) Tho!as Y (a5atos) !re Y science) %hiloso%hy of Y tr"thli5eness Y ?ienna Circle

Co%yri-ht & 122@ by

Ste%hen Thornton Zstephen?thorntonC#ic?ul?ie[