Dear Rafe,
In "From Knowledge to Wisdom" (1984), and ""Is Science
Neurotic?" I distinguish two kinds of inquiry - knowledge-inquiry and
wisdom-inquiry - and I argue in some detail that knowledge-inquiry has its
good points but is nevertheless is damagingly irrational when viewed from
the standpoint of being of value to humanity. Wisdom-inqury is what emerges
when the damaging intellectual defects of knowledge-inquiry are put right.
Popper defends a version of knowledge-inquiry, so my criticisms apply to
Popper's position as well. In From Knowledge to Wisdom, Popper's Open
Society and Its Enemies is discussed. In "Is Science Neurotic?", chapter 3,
I argue that the view I expound and defend can be seen as overcoming defects
inherent in Popper's falsificationism and critical rationalism.
For my criticisms of Popper's views about natural
science, have a look at my 'Critique of Popper's Views on Scientific Method'
(Phil. Sci., 1972), 'The Rationality of Scientific Discovery' (Phil. Sci.
1974), the two books mentioned above, and 'Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and
Aim-Oriented Empiricism' (Philosophia, 32, 2005, pp. 181-239), and 'Popper's
Paradoxical Pursuit of Natural Philosophy' (Cambridge Companion to Popper,
CUP, forthcoming), the last two papers available at:-
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000251/ and
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002246/
Best wishes,
Nick
www.nick-maxwell.demon.co.uk
> > (1) Nick is pretty well saying that Popperian "standard empiricism" is
> > part of the problem (in fact I even find myself defending other
> > aspects of Popper against Nick's arguments).
>
> Has anyone explained how Popper's epistemology stands against wisdom or
the
> helpful and humanitarian application of knowledge?
>
> If you are looking for a more up front account of social and political
> problem-solving you would turn from his epistemology to The Open Society
and
> its Enemies.
>
> > (2) When you say "True science is by its nature not 'neurotic' but
> > impartial to all save the objective of expanding knowledge of the
> > world." ... you seem to be wishing that's what it was (true science),
> > but missing the point that depite the Popperian line, in practice it
> > (actual science) is not, and nor should it be if it we're honest. It's
> > that repressed paradox that is the neurosis.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "despite the Popper line", as though there
was
> some defect in Popper's ideas that has to be dismissed as a "line". He
never
> tried to be a sociologist of science, he was concerned with promoting best
> practice in the search for truth, with a concern for the application of
the
> findings as well. Not a bad line actually.
>
> Rafe Champion
>
>
|