Conjectures and refutations of Karl R Popper

Introduction

There are unwarranted prophecies, especially when it comes to science and anticipations that aid our knowledge by providing guesses, attempted solutions, predictive solutions, and scientific justifications known as guesses. However, Karl R. Popper disputes his opinion on the reliability of the conjectures and rebuttals in this book and thus extensively explains the phenomenon of hypothesis as prophecy and experimentation to produce a result. Not only does the author use scientific examples, but he also uses shreds of evidence from politics and history to create a practical sense of enlightenment among the audience of this book.

Popper applies bold theories about the growth of knowledge to tackle a number of problems in this world that range from the least fascinating to the most fascinating. The origin of science and its relationship to individuals is discussed extensively in this book with reference to everyday life issues. Although it emphasizes that although conjectures are strong public opinions, they remain conjectures and are not considered accepted until and unless they are proven by a scientific method using relevant techniques as explained by science.

Critical review

Starting with a relevant philosophical approach, Karl R. Popper says in his book that “Among the theories that interested me, Einstein’s theory of relativity was undoubtedly the most important. Three others were Marx’s theory of history, the Freud’s psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s theory of relativity, the so-called ‘individual psychology’ “. So the author basically clarifies the three theories that interest him. Use brilliant rhetorical tools to help him with this. Taking into account Adler’s theory, the author tells how different human behaviors are. One may differ from another and this causes differences in interpretation and gathering of knowledge. Seeking confirmations of any theory could result in approval as suggested by Karl R. Popper. The more a theory prohibits, the better it is. Popper says the strengthening factors of predictions as theories that the irrefutable is not a virtue of the theory.

In addition, Popper explains the scientific rejection of theories that contain falsifications such as astrology, the imitation of auras, etc. Actually, these theories can be differentiated by a decent line of demarcation between statements that claim to be scientifically acceptable, but they are not. Induction is one of the most commented scientific aspects and, therefore, with a personal experience, Karl R. Popper wants to convey the thought that induction can be a myth, since it helps to develop the variability criterion and amplifies a faulty demarcation.

In discussing the current state of philosophy, the author uses subjects as a means of distinguishing between different disciplines. Using examples from physics, biology, and the rest of the subjects, Popper wants to deliver the main content that leads to creating a gap between two or more subjects. The two reasons he points to are historical and administrative procedures or the growth of final problems in unified systems. By critically reviewing, the author believes in the prima facie principle, where a person begins with the very basic level to acquire knowledge using the works of the greatest philosophers and this would help the subject to build an honest effort in order to involve his mind for a future. certain theory.

Karl R. Popper says that all scientific theories, revolutions, laws and causes are pieces of evidence of logic that are drawn from historicism. In this text you can see a brilliant image of the relationship between history and the present. The needs and desires of the social sciences are also very well organized in his writings where the author highlights the trajectory of prediction of history, religion, the millennial ideas of phenomena such as eclipses, the movements of the planets, the doctrine of the astronomical beliefs and conditional predictions. The author uses examples from science and life to provide supporting evidence for his context of scientific and conditional prophecies, for example, the boiling of water can be automatically and conditionally perceived as a change in temperature, that is, an increase. The author also claims to falsify the validation of the social sciences by creating prophecies for future development. To back up his claim, Popper used scientific examples like second law thermodynamics, the production of 100% efficient machinery, etc. Popper writes about the connection between historical philosophies and scientific predictions.

Furthermore, in terms of economic context, Karl R. Popper presents a critical and neutral argument, both for and against the most commented liberal market theory, that is, Marxism and its economic variant in order to simplify the associated belief sets. with him, also known as Scientific Socialism. The author does not directly use the historicism tab to provide a direct attack on Marxism, but instead criticizes the theory with reference to the opinions, ancient and modern policies, views of various philosophers, especially all except Marx himself. The diversity is visible in the opinions of those philosophers belonging to different schools of scientific thought. Karl R. Popper tries to emotionally attract his readers to interpret contexts related to “Man and Society”. Similarly, it invalidates acceptance and rushes to available, ready-to-use solutions by validating new theories, philosophies, and science-related topics. The author tells true and authentic ways to reach a final scientific conclusion by following critics of the method as a weapon to address problems. This criticism of the method provides self-elaboration and explanation to all the problems and their causes plus solutions. Therefore, this scientific method of the critic develops a formal definition of causality.

The author creates a contrast between rationalism, romanticism and the optimistic school of thought. Furthermore, he compares it to Kant’s thoughts on enlightenment. Freedom of expression and faith in the doctrine of public opinion is the way out of man from the immaturity that he imposes himself. Furthermore, there is a strong connection in these terms of the configuration of modernity. A person at liberty to speak and present his thoughts and opinions not only faces various dangers, but is himself a danger. Public opinions are strong enough to bring revolution and evolution. Karl R. Popper elaborates the danger using his own experience as the best example concerning this free speech case where collective arguments can cause harm to a specific group of individuals. Furthermore, Popper uses analogies to provide supporting evidence when discussing liberalization of principles and theories, effective in society. The author uses a democratic point of view in the face of opinions and liberalization and how it affects the results of a positive demand in society. The author elaborates the circumstances of democracy in relation to liberal principles and theses using theories and discourses of relevant ideas.

Conclution

The author develops a critical understanding of what really requires to be a truth and not a myth. A truth requires imagination, trial, error, and the gradual discovery of prejudices. Public opinions have great effects on the density of truths. Popper confronts the purity of truth as it changes with the effectiveness of public opinion collectively as a powerful tool for personifying the actual fact as a fallacy. Karl R. Popper also used supporting evidence and examples in which he showed how public opinions affect political illustrations and theses. Opinions are freedom of expression, everyone has the right to speak what they think is the speech or the set of ideas. No one should refrain from accepting opinions. Opinions must be respected without offense and without arguing consent. In general, public opinions play a vital role in the development of a society and are strong enough to modify the theories of truth and faith from the doctrine of beliefs.

References

Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, 2002.