Introduction
There are unsubstantiated prophecies, especially when it comes to science, and anticipations that help our knowledge by providing guesses, tentative solutions, predictive solutions, and scientific justifications known as conjectures. However, Karl R. Popper discusses his view on the reliability of conjectures and refutations in this book, and thus extensively explains the phenomenon of hypothesis as prophecy and experimentation to produce a result. The author not only uses scientific instances, but also uses bits of supporting evidence from politics and history to create a practical sense of enlightenment within the audience of this book.
Popper applies bold theories of the growth of knowledge to address a range of problems in this world that range from the least fascinating to the most fascinating. The origin of science and its relationship with individuals is extensively discussed in this book with reference to issues of daily life. Although he emphasizes that while the conjectures are sound public opinion, they are still conjectures and are not considered accepted until 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 by far the most important. Three others were Marx’s theory of history, Freud’s psychoanalysis, and Alfred Adler’s theory. the so-called ‘individual psychology.'” So the author basically sheds light on the three theories he is interested in. He uses brilliant rhetorical tools to help him in this. Taking Adler’s theory into account, the author tells how different behaviors are humans. One may differ from another and this causes differences in interpretation and knowledge gathering. Seeking confirmations of any theory could result in approval as suggested by Karl R. Popper. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. Popper tells factors strengthen predictions such as theories that irrefutability is not a virtue of the theory.
In addition, Popper explains the scientific rejection of theories that contain falsehood such as astrology, the imitation of auras, etc. These theories can actually be differentiated by a decent line of demarcation between statements that claim to be scientifically acceptable, but that’s not the case. Induction is one of the most discussed scientific aspects and, therefore, with a personal experience, Karl R. Popper wants to convey the idea 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 the themes as a means of distinguishing between different disciplines. By using examples from physics, biology and the rest of the subjects, Popper wants to deliver the main content that leads to building a gap between two or more subjects. The two reasons he points to are historical and administrative procedures or the growth of end problems in unified systems. Reviewing critically, the author believes in the prima facie principle where a person starts with the most basic level to acquire knowledge using the works of the greatest philosophers and this would help the subject to build an honest effort to wrap his mind for a certain theory. .
Karl R. Popper says that all scientific theories, revolutions, laws and causality are pieces of evidence of the logic that is drawn from historicism. A brilliant image of the relationship between history and the present is visible in this text. The needs and desires of the social sciences are also very well organized in his writings, where the author highlights the predictive trajectory of history, religion, ancient ideas of phenomena such as eclipses, the movements of the planets, the doctrine of 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, boiling water can automatically and conditionally be perceived as a change in temperature, i.e. an increase. The author also claims to falsify the validation of the social sciences by creating prophecies for future development. To support his claim, Popper used scientific examples such as second law thermodynamics, the production of 100% efficient machinery, etc. Popper writes about the connection between historical philosophies and scientific predictions.
In addition, in terms of the economic context, Karl R. Popper presents a critical and neutral argument, both for and against the most commented theory of market liberals, that is, Marxism and its economic variant, in order to simplify 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 critiques the theory with reference to the opinions, ancient and modern political 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 appeal to his readers to interpret contexts related to “Man and Society”. Similarly, he provides validation of acceptance and rushes toward ready-made solutions by validating new theories, philosophies, and issues related to science. The author recounts true and authentic ways to reach a definitive scientific conclusion following critiques of the method as a weapon to address problems. This critique of the method brings self-elaboration and explanation to all the problems and their causes plus solutions. Thus, this critic’s scientific method 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 the Enlightenment. Freedom of expression and doctrine Faith in public opinion is the way out of man’s self-imposed immaturity. Furthermore, there is a strong connection in these terms of shaping modernity. A person freed to speak and present his thoughts and opinions not only faces various dangers but is a danger itself. Public opinions are strong enough to bring about a revolution and an evolution. Karl R. Popper elaborates on the danger using his own experience as the best example relating to this free speech case where collective arguments can cause harm to a specific group of individuals. In addition, Popper uses analogies to provide supporting evidence when he analyzes the liberalization of effective principles and theories in society. The author uses a democratic point of view against 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.
conclusion
The author develops a critical understanding of what it really requires to be a truth and not a myth. A truth requires imagination, trial, error, and the gradual discovery of biases. 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 in impersonating actual fact as fallacy. Karl R. Popper also uses supporting evidence and examples in which he showed how public opinion affects political illustrations and theses. Opinions are freedom of expression, each individual has the right to express what they think is the speech or set of ideas. No one should refrain from accepting opinions. Opinions must be respected without being offended and the argumentation of 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 the faith doctrine of beliefs.
References
Popper, Karl Raimund. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, 2002.
