University of El Salvador

Western Multidisciplinary Campus

Foreign Language Department
Research Methods

Karl Popper’s
Theory of Knowledge

Teacher: Licda. Delurdy de Sermeño

Students: Escalante Herrera, Ana Yanira
Hernández Rivas, Noemí Elizabeth

Due to:
September 04, 2008
 INDEX

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
The Theory of Knowledge.............................................................................................4
Objective Knowledge vs. Subjective Knowledge...........................................................4
a. The Objectiveness and Autonomy of World Three......................................................................7
2. Pluralism and Emergence in History............................................................................8
The Problem of Induction...........................................................................................10
1. Description of the problem of Induction.....................................................................10
a. Hume’s Logical Problem ...........................................................................................................12
b. The Psychological Problems .....................................................................................................13
c. Popper’s Solution of the Logical Problem.................................................................................13
1. Description of the problem of demarcation................................................................13
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................17
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................18
GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................20
ABSTRACT: Karl Popper, an important philosopher of the twentieth
century, describes the Theory of Knowledge stating that there are 3 worlds in
which human knowledge can be subdivided. World 1 is the universe of real
objects, World 2 is the world of subjective thoughts and World 3 is the world of
objective content. Besides that, Popper states that the only way of getting real
knowledge is the trial and error elimination method. Popper says that the
Inductive approach is invalid since it is based on observations. Therefore, the
correct form to get an appropriate conclusion about something is by testing
hypotheses over and over. Finally, Popper’s theory includes Demarcation,
which basically consists on problem solving using ad hoc and auxiliary
theories.

INTRODUCTION
Karl Raymond Popper is generally regarded as one of the greatest
philosophers of science of the twentieth century. He was also a social and
political philosopher of great prestige, and a critical rationalist, and a defender
of the ¨Open Society¨. However, through this work, we will present Popper’s
Theory of Knowledge or as he calls it The Growth of Human Knowledge.
Popper’s conception is presented as Three Worlds of Knowledge. He points
out that there is a great difference between knowledge seen in the Subjective
sense and knowledge seen in the Objective sense, which he favors. Popper
maintains that World 1 is the physical universe, World 2 is made of mind and
conscience states, and finally World 3 is composed of the products and
results of these states. Popper calls it the World of Objective contents of
thought, especially scientific thoughts and artifacts. He stated that this
conception of knowledge differs from Plato’s and Hegel’s conceptions and
theories, but his theory is very similar to Bolzano’s interpretation of world 3.
When referring to human knowledge, Popper differs from many other
philosophers who consider the word ¨knowledge¨ subjectively. In contrast, he
has an objective sense of the world knowledge. Popper strongly believes that
to think about knowledge produced by men can be compared to the honey
produced by bees. Why does he make such a comparison? He answers: ¨the
honey is made by bees, stored by bees; and the individual bee which

1
consumes honey will not in general, consume only a bit it has produced itself:
honey is also consumed by the drones which have not produced any at all. ¨It
is also interesting to know that, in order to keep up its power to produce more
honey, each working bee has to consume honey, some of it usually produced
by other bees.¨ (Objective Knowledge. 1972. publ. claredon press) In contrast,
Popper states that we, human, are not only producers but consumers of
theories; and we have to consume other people’s theories, and perhaps they
are only theories if we are to go on producing. However, in here, ¨to consume¨
means ¨to digest¨, and it means more. Our consumption of theories whether
those created by other people or by ourselves, also means criticizing them,
changing them, and often demolishing them in order to replace them by better
ones. Different from Plato, Popper is not an idealist but a realist.

Popper also stresses importance of autonomy in his world 3 (created

by humans), but at the same time, it has some influence over human. Popper
defines science and simplifies it through this schema:

P1 TT EE P2

This rational schema is summarized in this statement: critical error

elimination on the scientific level proceeds by way of a conscious search of
contradictions. Popper maintains that knowledge does not begin observing
phenomena but looking for problems (P1), trying to solve them by testing
tentative theories (TT), and leading the scientists to error elimination (EE)
resulting in new problems which will become ad hoc and auxiliary theories. In
here, Popper strongly criticizes the discovering of world 3, Plato and other
philosophers such as Hegel and Hume for their essentialists and nominalists’
view of knowledge.

Popper also thinks that Induction is not scientific at all since it depends
on observations in order to infer. He says that we only solve problems through
experimentation and proving of false hypotheses in order to better the former
hypotheses until it is trust worthy and becomes a real solution part of his world
three. At last Popper holds that the problem of demarcation deals again with

2
the testing of hypotheses which cannot be accepted at once as true since
they must go through a process of classifying scientific and non-scientific
theories. In order to do this, Popper uses two types of theories: ad hoc and
auxiliary theories. These two types will need time to prove that the falsification
of theories lead to objective scientific knowledge.

3
The Theory of Knowledge
Even though Karl Popper’s theory is not as well known as Plato’s or
Aristotle’s theory of knowledge, his idea of an objective conception of
knowledge is not rejected as a great contribution. Instead, he is highly
recognized as a twentieth century rationalist. His form of perceiving human
growth of knowledge is simplified in a theory of falsification of hypotheses. For
him, the validity and reliability of theories depends on false asseverations until
the scientist reaches a conclusion that as he states can pass the fire proof by
being tested and falsified over and over. Popper’s theory of knowledge is
subdivided in three main aspects: his view of objective and subjective
knowledge in his three worlds, the problem of induction, and the problem of
demarcation which make of his simple schema a real source of the growth of
knowledge.

Objective Knowledge vs. Subjective Knowledge

1. Popper’s Three Worlds of Knowledge

Karl popper defines the growth of human knowledge by using three

worlds. He states that the way he defines worlds does not have the
connotation of ¨worlds¨ or ¨universe¨ as scientists and philosophers of the era
define them. Popper points out that many philosophers hold that knowledge is
subjective. However, he defines human knowledge as the three different
worlds in which it can be subdivided. This is the core of Popper’s conception
of human knowledge. World one is “the physical universe. It consists of the
actual truth and reality that we try to represent, such as energy, physics, and
chemistry.” This is the world of real objects and the physic states. World two is
“the world of our subjective personal perceptions, experiences, and cognition.
It is what we think about the world as we try to map, represent, and anticipate
our hypothesis in order to maintain our existence in an every changing place.
Personal knowledge and memory form this world, which are based on self-
regulation, cognition, consciousness, dispositions, and processes.” Finally,
world three is “the result of the objective abstract products of the human mind.
It consists of such artifacts as books, tools, theories, models, libraries,
computers, and networks.” This includes especially the scientific and poetic

4
thoughts as well as the artifacts (Miller, 1997) Popper summarizes these in
the following diagram:

(Taken from http://www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.html)

Even though these worlds are different, they are related as follows:

♦ World 1 drives and enables world 2 to exist, while world 2 tries to control
and regulate world 1.

♦ World 2 produces world 3, while world 3 helps in the recall and the
training/education/development/learning of world 2.

♦ World 3 describes and predicts world 1, while world 1 is the inferred

logic of world 3.

These three worlds described by Popper do not contradict each

other but establish a relationship in order to get to objective knowledge.
In addition, since world 2 is composed by people, we can use our
senses to cut across boundaries and observe and test the exchanges
and relationships of worlds 1 and 2.Thus, knowledge surrounds us
(world 1), becomes a part of us (world 2), and is then stored in historical
contents and contexts by us (world 3 artifacts). In this framework there
are two different senses of knowledge or thought:

5
♦ Knowledge in the subjective sense, consisting of a state of mind
with a disposition to behave or to react (cognition).

♦ Knowledge in an objective sense, consisting of the expression of

problems, theories, and arguments.

While the first one is personal, the second one is totally independent of
anybody's claim to know. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Popper in his book Popper’s Selected Works states that epistemology

is the “theory of the scientific knowledge”, and he defines this through the
following three theses:

The first one states that the traditional epistemology has studied
knowledge and thought in the subjective sense: in the sense of the common
usage of phrases such as “I know”, or “I’m thinking”. For him the theory of
scientific knowledge belongs to the World 3, the world of the objective
theories, objective problems and objective arguments. So it is wrong the way
traditional epistemology uses the phrase “I know”. Popper’s first thesis
encompasses two meanings for the words thought and knowledge, 1)
knowledge or thought in the subjective case consists of a state of mind or
conscience or the disposition to behave or react and 2) knowledge or thought
in the objective sense encompasses problems, theories, and arguments as
such. Knowledge in this sense is knowledge without a subject.

His second thesis states that epistemology is the study of scientific

problems, problematic situations and the study of scientific conjectures, (that
is for him another form to refer to hypothesis or scientific theories) the critical
arguments and the role evidence plays in the arguments. Hence, that is
evidence of the scientific periodic publications and of books, experiments, and
his evaluation in the scientific argumentation. In short, this means that the
study of the world three is definitely autonomous.

At last, his last thesis says that an objective epistemology that study
the world three can help us to understand better the world of the scientific
conscience, world two, especially about the scientists’ subjective processes of
thought; however, we cannot do the opposite, try to understand world two by

6
using world three. So Popper theories can be summarized as follows: The first
is that the world three is a natural product of humans comparable to a spider
web. The second one says that world three is autonomous even though we
are directly over it, and it has an influence on us. It is autonomous; even
though it is a product of the human life and it has a strong effect on us, and
inhabitants of worlds one and two. The third one says that through this
interaction between us and the world three we get to objective knowledge.
(Miller, 1997)

a. The Objectiveness and Autonomy of World Three

Most theories and books, and potential arguments from the world three
emerge as a non-intentional product of the books and arguments. In addition,
it can also be considered a product of human language. Popper says that
human language is a non-intentional product of actions aimed at other
purposes. Popper states that a great part of world three is constructed non-
intentionally, but it is a sub product of events. According to Popper, that is,
perhaps, the reason why human language and institutions have been created
by men. They were created without planning. It is possible that they did not
even need them; however, as time passed by, they became necessary. While
some goals are achieved, a lot of new universes of possibilities, new goals
and new problems emerge. (Miller, 1997)

The idea of autonomy is vital in this world three. Even though the world
number three is a human product, a human creation, it creates, at the same
time, its own autonomy. Sometimes, this human product leads us to make
conjectures which we cannot control, and this exactly makes these products
difficult to figure out. Nevertheless, this autonomy is only partial: new
problems lead us to new creations and constructions, and in this way, new
objects are added in world three. As a result, each of these steps will create
new non-intentional facts, unexpected new problems and very often new
refutations. This is the most important part of Popper’s contribution to the
growth of human knowledge, and this can be simplified as follows:

P1 TT EE P2

7
 Here ¨P¨ stands for problem; “TT” stands for tentative theory and “EE”
stands for (attempted) error elimination especially by way of critical
discussion. Popper’s tetradic schema is an attempt to show that the result of
criticism, or of error elimination, applied to a tentative theory, is as a rule the
emergence of a new problem; or indeed of several new problems. Generally,
these new problems are not intentionally human creations; instead, they are
generated in an autonomous way through new relationships which we cannot
stop from emerging with every new action. Popper suggests proposing many
theories as attempts to solve some given problems, and then examine each of
our tentative solutions. As a result, we find that each gives rise to new
problems, and we may follow up those which promise the most novel and
most interesting new problem. If the new problem turns out to be merely the
old ¨P¨ in disguise, then, we say that our new theory only manages to shift the
problem a little. In some cases, we may take this as a decisive objection to
the tentative theory, TT. (Miller, 1997)

2. Pluralism and Emergence in History

a. Plato’s World Three vs. Popper’s World Three

In his book Popper’s Selected Works, Popper acknowledges Plato as

the discoverer of world three; however, he strongly criticizes Plato’s world
three which was made of “eternal, unchanging conceptions or notions.” Unlike
Plato’s world three, Popper’s world three is created and changed by men. It is
not only made of true theories but also made of false ones, and especially
open problems, conjectures, and refutations. Plato also believed that the
world three, the World of Forms and Ideas will give us definite explanations.
Plato considered the objects of the world 3 to be” something like stars or
constellations: something to admire, to sense, but something out of our minds
reach.” The ¨citizens¨ of Plato’s world became concepts, essences, or even
the nature of things but not theories, arguments, or problems. This idea
adopted by many philosophers even at present time, is expressed as a
problem in the following diagram:

8
 IDEAS
that is

DESIGNATIONS or TERMS STATEMENTS or PROPOSITIONS

or CONCEPTS or THEORIES

may be formulated in

WORDS ASSERTIONS

which may be

MEANINGFUL TRUE

and their

MEANING TRUTH

May be reduced, by way of

DEFINITIONS DERIVATIONS

to that of

UNDEFINED CONCEPTS PRIMITIVE PROPOSITIONS

The attempt to establish (rather than reduce) by these means their

MEANING TRUTH

leads to an infinite regress

Popper holds that concepts are partly means to formulate theories and
partly means to summarize them. In any case, however, its meaning is mainly
instrumental, and it can always be substituted by other concepts. (Miller,
1997, pp. 77-80) On the other hand, Hegel’s ideas were “dialectically self-
changing conceptions or notions.” His conception of world three comprises
two aspects: the Objective Spirit (includes the artistic creation) and the
Absolute Spirit (encompasses philosophy.) These two consist of human
productions. He states that ¨the individuals¨… are instruments… of the line of
thought of the period and its work, ¨its substantial occupation¨ is prepared and
signed independently of them. On the other hand, Popper schema functions
¨through error elimination in the scientific level by criticizing and based on the
search of the truth¨. (Miller, 1997) This critic consists on the search of
contradictions and the elimination: the resulting difficulty of this elimination
constitutes the new problem (P2). In this way, elimination leads us to the
objective development of our knowledge and its objective meaning. Finally,
this leads to the objective verisimilitude; consequently, we come to the

9
absolute truth. (Miller, 1997) Hegel does not see our world as “a search of
contradictions with the aim of eliminating them because he thinks that the
contradictions are as good as the theoretical systems, no contradictory (or
better): these provide us with the mechanism through which the spirit impels
itself.”(Objective Knowledge, 1972) Hence, the rational critic does not play
any role in the Hegelian authomaticism nor plays any role in the human
creativity. Differently of the above, Popper world three does not have any
similitude with the human conscience. Even though its first ¨citizens¨ are
human products of conscience, they are completely different from any
subjective sense. Differently, Popper finds that the most important are not
conceptions or notions at all, but that they correspond not to words but to
statements or propositions. In opposition to Plato and Hegel, Popper
considers tentative theories about the world-that is, hypotheses together with
their logical consequences-as the most important citizens of the world of
ideas; he does not think (as Plato did) that their strangely non-temporal
character makes them eternal and thereby more real than things that are
generated and are subject to change, and to decay.
(PhilosophyArchive@marxists.org) On the contrary, a thing that can change
and perish should for this very reason be accepted as prima facie real; and
even an illusion is, qua illusion, a real illusion. (Miller, 1997)

The Problem of Induction

1. Description of the problem of Induction

Popper describes the problem of induction according to what Hume
states about. The problem of Induction emerges of: 1) Hume’s discovery (also
clearly expressed by Born) that is impossible to justify a law through
observation or experimentations because it goes beyond experimentation. 2)
The fact that science proposes and utilizes laws ¨ everywhere and all the
time¨ (as Hume, Born is impressed by the few material, it means, the few
observed cases in which the law can be founded). To these, we add point 3)
the principle of empiricism, which states that, in science just the observation
and the experimentation can justify the acceptation or the refusal of the

10
scientific statements, including the laws and theories. Among these three
principles there is an apparent contradiction; this contradiction constitutes the
logical problem of Induction. However, those principles do not contradict
among themselves. This can be noted in the moment that the acceptance by
science of a law or a theory is tentative only; this means that all the laws and
theories are conjectures or tentative hypotheses and that we may reject a law
or a theory on the basis of new evidences, without necessarily discarding our
old evidence that lead us to accept it originally. (Miller, 1997, pp.114, 115)
The principle 3 of the empiricism can be preserved since the fate of a theory,
its acceptation, or its denial is decided by the observation and the
experimentation…through tests results. As a theory passes through intensive
tests, it can be accepted, or if not, it can be rejected. But it is never inferred, in
any sense, from the empirical evidence. Induction does not exist, neither
psychological nor logical. From the empiric evidence, just the falsifiability of a
theory can be inferred, and that inference is purely deductive. Popper states
“following Hume’s, that all deductive inferences are logically invalid … even
inductively invalid.” (Miller, 1997, pp.116) He says that there are many
evidences or examples of inferences deductively valid, but there are not
examples of inferences inductively valid.

Popper agrees with Hume’s opinion saying that “induction is invalid and
never justified”. Popper disagrees with Hume’s opinions (and almost all
philosophers’ opinions) that induction is a fact, and always a necessity. The
belief that we use induction is just wrong; it is similar to an optic illusion.
Popper states that “what we really use is a method of trials and error
elimination; even if this method is confused with induction, when we examine
it well, its logical structure totally differs from the logical structure of induction.
Also, it is a method that does not make emerge any of the difficulties related
to the problem of induction.” (Miller, 1997, pp. 116,117) Popper says and
firmly states that the scientific knowledge is essentially conjectural and
hypothetical. Popper’s central thesis is: “ as we completely realize the
implications of the conjectural character of human knowledge, the problem of
induction changes of aspect completely: there is no need of being disturbed
by the negative results of Hume because there is no need of attributing to the

11
human knowledge a validity derived from repetitive observations”. We can
explain our achievements in terms of the trial and error elimination methods.
(Miller, 1997, pp. 117)

Popper also talks about the “theory of commonsense”, something that

he really appreciates. He thinks that every philosophy should start from
commonsense points of view and its critic exam. Two parts of commonsense
view of the world are taken into account by Popper. The first one refers to the
realism of common sense. By realism, he means a” real world, real people,
real animals and plants and real stars”. The other part of commonsense view
of the world is the theory of knowledge of common sense. In here, the
problem is how we get our knowledge about the world. “The solution of
common senses is as follows: open the eyes and ears. Our senses are the
main if not the only sources of our knowledge about the world.” Philosophies
of commonsense, the realism of commonsense and the theory of knowledge
of commonsense, were supported by Hume; however, he discovered as
Berkeley had previously done it, that there is a clash between them. (Miller,
1997) For Hume and Berkeley, authentic knowledge consisted on beliefs
supported by enough reasons. Hume as other philosophers such as Berkeley
and Leibniz believed that if a person does not have reasons to hold a belief,
then that person has enough reason to stop thinking that way. For Berkley
and Hume, real knowledge meant essentially beliefs based on sounded
reasons, but these made them believed that knowledge consisted of
subjective feelings. So unlike Popper for these philosophers, the real world of
commonsense does not really exist. According to Hume, even humans do not
really exist. The only existing things are sensations, impressions, and mental
images. This belief is known as idealism. Idealism was a strong refutation of
the realism of common sense. In fact, Hume observed the contradiction
between the commonsense philosophies: realism and the theory of
knowledge based on commonsense. (Miller, 1997, pp. 118,119)

a. Hume’s Logical Problem

The two problems based on induction are: the logical problem and the
psychological problem. The logical problem is as follows: Are we rationally
justified to reason based on repetitive instances on what we had previous

12
experiences, to go to instances on what we have not had any experience?
Hume’s answer was: No. We are not justified, no matter the number of
repetitive instances. Instances of which we have had experience do not allow
us to reason or argue neither about the probability of instances of which we
have had no experience, nor about the certainty of such instances. (Miller,
1997, pp. 120,121)

b. The Psychological Problems

Hume stated the psychological problem as follows: why do all people
have expectations, trust them, and strongly believe in them? The answer of
Hume to this was: because of costume or habit. Hume says that humans are
accustomed to repetition; it is something we can hardly survive without.
According to Hume our scientific knowledge is only a habit or an irrational
custom. (Miller, 1997, pp. 121)

c. Popper’s Solution of the Logical Problem

Popper’s solution to the logical problem of induction was that we may
have preferences for certain of the competing conjectures; that is, for those
which are highly informative and which so far have stood up to eliminative
criticism. These preferred conjectures are the result of selection, of the
struggle for survival of the hypotheses under the strain of criticism, which is
artificially intensified selection pressure.

Popper reformulates Hume’s logical problem of Induction as follows:

¨Are we rationally justified in reasoning from instances or from non-instances
of which we have had experience to find out the truth or falsity of the
corresponding laws or to instances of which we have had no experience?¨
(Miller, 1997, pp. 122-130)

C. The Problem of Demarcation

1. Description of the problem of demarcation

As Popper represents it, the central problem in the philosophy of science
is that of demarcation, i.e., of distinguishing between science and what he
terms ‘non-science’. Under these headings he ranks, among others, logic,
metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology. Popper is

13
unusual among contemporary philosophers, for he accepts the validity of the
Humean critique of induction, and indeed, goes beyond it in arguing that
induction is never actually used by the scientist. However, he does not accept
that this is not necessary associated with Hume’s skepticism. In addition, he
argues that the Baconian/Newtonian insistence on the primacy of ‘pure’
observation, as the initial step in the formation of theories, is completely
misguided: all observation is selective and theory-laden — there are no pure
or theory-free observations. In this way, he destabilizes the traditional view
that science can be distinguished from non-science on the basis of its
inductive methodology. On the contrary, Popper holds that there is no unique
methodology specific to science. Popper believes that science, like virtually
every other human, and indeed organic, activity, consists largely of problem-
solving.

Popper, then, refutes induction, and rejects the view that it is the
characteristic method of scientific investigation and inference, and substitutes
this idea for falsifiability. According to Popper, it is easy to corroborate any
theory through evidence. This “corroboration” should count scientifically only if
it is the positive result of a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might
conceivably have been false. Then, what does Popper mean by corroborate
theories? For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable by a
conceivable event. “Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically
an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies
the whole theory.” In a critical sense, “Popper's theory of demarcation is
based upon his perception of the logical asymmetry which holds between
verification and falsification: it is logically impossible to conclusively verify a
universal proposition by reference to experience (as Hume saw clearly), but a
single counter-instance conclusively falsifies the corresponding universal law.
In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving’ a rule, conclusively refutes it.”
(http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/)

Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive, in the

sense that it forbids, by implication, particular events or occurrences. As such
it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper
stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood

14
the most rigorous testing, for a long a period of time. This hypothesis has then
been verified, so that such a theory has received a high measure of
corroboration and may be provisionally retained as the best available theory
until it is finally falsified (if indeed it is ever falsified), and/or is superseded by a
better theory.

Popper has always drawn a clear distinction between the logic of

falsifiability and its applied methodology. The logic of his theory is utterly
simple in this example: if a single ferrous metal is unaffected by a magnetic
field it cannot be the case that all ferrous metals are affected by magnetic
fields. Logically speaking, a scientific law is conclusively falsifiable although it
is not conclusively verifiable. Methodologically, however, the situation is much
more complex: no observation is free from the possibility of error —
consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it
appeared to be.

Thus, while using falsifiability as the criterion of demarcation for science,

Popper explicitly allows for the fact that in practice a single conflicting or
counter-instance is never sufficient methodologically to falsify a theory.
Moreover, he believes that scientific theories are often retained even though
much of the available evidence conflicts with them, or is anomalous with
respect to them. Scientific theories may, and do, arise genetically in many
different ways, and the way in which a particular scientist formulates a
particular theory may be of biographical interest, but it is of no consequence
as far as the philosophy of science is concerned. Popper holds that there is
neither a unique way in particular, nor a single method such as induction,
which functions as the route to scientific theory. To this respect, Einstein
personally endorsed with his affirmation that ‘there is no logical path leading
to (the highly universal laws of science). They can only be reached by
intuition, based upon something like an intellectual love of the objects of
experience’. In Popper’s view science starts with problems rather than with
observations — it is, indeed, precisely what scientists make observations for,
to solve problems. Scientists’ observations are selectively designed to test the

15
extent to which a given theory functions as a satisfactory solution to a given
problem.

On this criterion of demarcation physics, chemistry, and (non-

introspective) psychology, among others, are sciences, psychoanalysis is a
pre-science (i.e., it undoubtedly contains useful and informative truths, but
until such time as psychoanalytical theories can be formulated in such a
manner as to be falsifiable, they will not attain the status of scientific theories),
and astrology and phrenology are pseudo-sciences. In short, formally, then,
Popper's theory of demarcation may be articulated as follows: where a ‘basic
statement’ is to be understood as a particular observation-report, then we may
say that a theory is scientific if and only if it divides the class of basic
statements into the following two non-empty sub-classes: (a) the class of all
those basic statements with which it is inconsistent, or which it prohibits —
this is the class of its potential falsifiers (i.e., those statements which, if true,
falsify the whole theory), and (b) the class of those basic statements with
which it is consistent, or which it permits (i.e., those statements which, if true,
corroborate it, or support it. (Miller, 1997)

a. Ad Hoc and Auxiliary Theories

For Popper the problem of demarcation can be approached using ad

hoc and auxiliary theories. For example, if one of our theories turns to be
false, then the scientific must change the theory using either of them. An ad
hoc theory Popper points out is a theory proposed to explain determined
problem , but this problem in contrast can not be proved independently.
However, this ad hoc hypothesis can become testifiable at some time. They
are, in fact, auxiliary hypotheses which in some time could not be proved.
Therefore, the creation of an ad hoc hypothesis can lead us to drop it out or
create a new one and so on. In summary, the use of either auxiliary or ad hoc
theories can lead the scientist to a process of problem solving trough the
testing, refutation, and of course, error elimination.

16
 CONCLUSION
After searching different sources about Karl Popper’s theory of human
knowledge, we can infer that the growth of human knowledge has been
defined from different points of view. We can say that because Popper has
taken somebody else’s works or theories in order to either improve his own or
criticize others’ theories. It is interesting to note that Popper’s theory of

17
knowledge is, to some extent, radical because he presents this theory very
differently from what other philosophers have said about the conceptions of
the world or universe. Popper’s conception of the world is mostly based on
deduction. For Popper, knowledge is only acquired through the emergence of
problems, falsification of theories and error elimination. He strongly believes
that knowledge can not be placed in his world 2, but that it is the result
presented in his world 3. For him, this world is the tangible proof of human
creation and capability to solve problems. He considers knowledge as
something subject to change, something that transcends from the subjective
(world 2) to the objective (world three).Moreover, he thinks that induction is
not an appropriate scientific approach because it is based on observations.
Instead, he states that trials and error elimination is the appropriate and most
reliable way to prove a theory. Popper also makes a distinction between what
is scientific and non scientific by using tentative theories that at some point in
time become testable and result of not only true statements but also of false
hypothesis. This is, for Popper, the only way to immunize a theory and to
patentates this belief as true. Finally, his theory is really interesting because it
impels the human mind as something creative and complex. However, we can
not restate the effectiveness and the value of the inductive approach or any
other approach that can help us to prove a theory because there is not a
unique method to acquire knowledge. So even though Popper’s theory of
knowledge comprises very good input, it also needs to better as, he himself
says, it must be subject to change through time.

REFERENCES

18
• Miller, D. (1997). Popper Escritos Selectos. Mexico: Fondo de Culturas
Econòmicas.

• Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 1963

• PhilosophyArchive@marxists.org

• http:// plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

• http:// www.knowledgejump.com/knowledge/popper.htm/

• http:// encyclopedia. kids. net. au/page/ka/Karl Popper

• http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/ Karl Popper

• Objective Knowledge (1972) publ. Claredon Press

19
 GLOSSARY

• Rationalist: someone whose actions and decisions are based on

reason rather than emotions or beliefs
• Artifacts: an object that is made by a person, such as a tool or a
decoration, especially one that is of historical interest
• Drones: male bees
• Idealist: someone who believes that ideals can be achieved, often
when this does not seem likely to others
• Autonomy : the right of a group of people to govern itself, or to
organize its own activities
• schema: a drawing that represents an idea or theory and makes
it easier to understand
• demarcation: a disagreement between trade unions (= organizations
of workers) about what types of work should be done by the members
of each of them
• connotation: a feeling or idea that is suggested by a particular word
although it is not necessarily a part of the word's meaning, or
something suggested by an object or situation
• boundaries: a real or imagined line that marks the edge or limit of
something, the limit of a subject or principle
• epistemology: the part of philosophy that is about the study of how we
know things
• conjectures: is a conclusion that is based on information that is not
certain or complete. (FORMAL)
• verisimilitude: is the quality of seeming to be true or real. (FORMAL)
• refutations: A refutation of an argument, accusation, or theory is
something that proves it is wrong or untrue. (FORMAL)
• statements: something that you say or write which gives information in
a formal or definite way.

20
• Empiricism: is the belief that people should rely on practical
experience and experiments, rather than on theories as, a basis for
knowledge. (FORMAL)
• Trials: A trial is a formal meeting in a law court, at which a judge and
jury listen to evidence and decide whether a person is guilty of a crime.
• Strain: If strain is put on an organization or system, it has to do more
than it is able to do. To strain something means to make it do more
than it is able to do.
• Laden: If someone or something is laden with a lot of heavy things,
they are holding or carrying them. (LITERARY)
• Ferrous: means containing or relating to iron.
• Anomalous: Something that is anomalous is different from what is
usual or expected. (FORMAL)
• Psychoanalysis: is the treatment of someone who has mental
problems by asking them about their feelings and their past in order to
try to discover what may be causing their condition.
• Phrenology: is the study of the size and shape of people's heads in
the belief that you can find out about their characters and abilities from
this.

21