A CRITIQUE OF POPPERS

EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY
HS 443
20th October, 2014

Poppers theory of knowledge

Three stages can be applied to the evolution of species as:
1.
2.
3.

A change in the environment or the inner structure of the organism poses a

problem(of species adaptation)
The attempted solutions are in the form of mutations
Most mutations are fatal to the bearer of the mutation and thus individuals are
eliminated

The three stage model is applicable to science in this way:

1. We always start with a problem
2. The attempted solutions consist of theories
3. We learn by eliminating false theories
So what is distinctive about human science?

The difference between an amoeba and Einstein

. The critical method being applied in the elimination stage
. science begins with the invention of the non-dogmatic, critical method

Poppers theory of knowledge

Darwinism: better-adapted individuals have a greater chance of having

offspring
Life must be adapted to its environment, or the environment must be adapted

to life.
Hence: for its survival, life must know already about the environment; thus,

adaptation is a form of a priori knowledge, general, not special, knowledge

The knowledge that we have is both innate and conjectural, being an

expectation that may or may not be fulfilled. Human beings are animals, and
cannot ever have certain knowledge.
Finally, our task as thinking beings is to discover the truth, the truth being

absolute and objective. We keep trying to compare our conjectures with

reality, and thus trying to improve them and get them closer to reality.

A priori knowledge
Everything we know is genetically a priori
All that is posteriori is the selection from what we ourselves have invented a

priori
Unlike Kant, Popper doesnt believe in the necessity of a priori knowledge. He

claims that since our perceptual knowledge is hypothetical, our a priori

knowledge may also be hypothetical.
Our a priori knowledge has a hypothetical(conjectural) character.
It is only genetically a priori and not a valid a priori, not a priori necessary, not

apodeictic.

A priori knowledge
Poppers theory suggests that the realm of a priori knowledge is a never-

ending process of problem solving, P1 PN and that human knowledge can

never be truly valid as a priori knowledge.
For Popper, there are two types of knowledge:
1. Empirical statements about the world that are hypothetical and

accordingly never apodeictically true

2. Tautological statements that are true by definition
Hence, any kind of non-hypothetical knowledge will go against Poppers

theory of problem solving. Even in the a priori branch of knowledge we have

problems which need to be solved and, according to Popper, human
knowledge can never be non- hypothetical.

Differences between evolution and scientific

progress
Progress is only progress with respect to some general sets of aims and

results from continuous attempts to satisfy the members of the set in

question.
We can speak of scientific progress. In contrast, there is no progress in

biological evolution.
Paul Thagard argues that the similarity between biological and scientific

development is superficial.
Selection of theories is different from selection of genes since:
1.

Survival of theories is the result of the satisfaction of global criteria.

2.

But survival of genes is the result of the satisfaction of local criteria.

Scientific communities are unlike natural environments in their ability to apply

general standards.

Kuhns view of science and organic evolution

The developmental process described by Kuhn is a process of evolution from

primitive beginnings
The analogy that relates the evolution of organisms to the evolution of

scientific ideas "is nearly perfect

Neither is a process of evolution towards any fixed goal
Must there be a goal set by nature in advance?
Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true

account of nature?
Is the proper measure of scientific achievement the extent to which it

brings us closer to an ultimate goal?

In Conclusion
Poppers idea of objective knowledge
However, the knowledge we possess is conjectural and uncertain
If we may never achieve this objective, absolute truth, then there is no proof

of the existence of this absolute truth

The analogy of scientific progress and evolution is inexact

References
Popper, K., Chapters 1, 4, 5 of All Life is Problem Solving, Psychology

Press, 1999
Currie, G., Poppers Evolutionary Epistemology: A Critique, Synthese, Vol.

37, No. 3 (Mar., 1978)

Thagard, P., Against Evolutionary Epistemology, PSA Volume 1, 1980
Kuhn, T., Chapter 13 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of

Chicago Press, 1996

THANK YOU
Ruhee Dcunha
Archita Dungdung

111030005
111030019