Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach

by Karl Popper

The essays in this volume represent an approach to human knowledge that has had a profound influence on many recent thinkers. Popper breaks with a traditional commonsense theory of knowledge that can be traced back to Aristotle. A realist and fallibilist, he argues closely and in simple language that scientific knowledge, once stated in human language, is no longer part of ourselves but a separate entity that grows through critical selection.

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Evolution, Essays, History, Anthropology

406 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1972

About the author

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, FRS, rose from a modest background as an assistant cabinet maker and school teacher to become one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences and conversation with him was an intellectual adventure—even if a little rough—animated by a myriad of philosophical problems. He contributed to a field of thought encompassing (among others) political theory, quantum mechanics, logic, scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.

Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.

Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.

Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.

(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)

Reviews

[Liam O'Leary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I only read the first two sections of this book, but the first section should be enough. He summarises Hume's Problem of Induction (which is asphyxiatingly apparent in this increasingly relativist and anti-intellectual Western culture) and proposes a bleak but progressive empirical method for rolling the ball of truth forward, even if we don't know where (and perhaps why) it's going.

I have respect for Popper's reasoning and approach but it's just not all that fun or enjoyable to read due to its entirely abstract approach without real-world examples, which is in no way limiting to its 'verisimilitude' as it plans to tackle the metaphysical issue head-on, but is just a bit of a drag for my presently impatient reading habits and busy life schedule. Like I said, the first two sections were convincing enough for me.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once I got over his attitude, and the first chapter was the worst for this, it was a relatively clear (as clear as philosophy can be) and worthwhile read. It's exciting to have read this so soon after Gilson's Methodological Realism, as they have a lot in common, and most of the differences are due to Gilson clinging too tightly to Aristotelianism or Popper overstating his differences with it in order to underline his points. It makes me think a new age of sense began to dawn in the 20th century and that there is the possibility of some momentum toward a new realist philosophy that could connect science, life, and religion (at least the Catholic faith) into a new coherent whole.

[Mladen · Rating 5 out of 5]

There's not much to be said about this book. It's simply a masterpiece in the philosophy of science and epistemology. Popper's views on the evolution of knowledge heavily influenced contemporary science in ways that are today considered common. The main idea of the book can be summed in only a few words. Science doesn't deal with truth but with solving problems. You initially come with a simple solution and gradually elevate your hypotheses of a solution to more complex forms. Out of context this may not make much sense, but I won't go into much detail because it makes just much more sense to read the book, which shouldn't be to difficult due to the fact that Popper writes in a clear and understanding manner.

[Dio Mavroyannis · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is assimilation of various Popper essays and as such, naturally repeats itself a few times. Nevertheless I found Popper to defend his point of view with the most clarity in a few of these essays, it details his view of two tiered evolution, his views on science and a bunch of other things.

There is also a great essay on clouds and clocks, though he only briefly makes a comment on this it got me thinking quite a bit about the open society. Though this essay is often used to talk about complexity I think that is misinformed.

[Eugene Kernes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book that explains and sets the conditions for the growth of knowledge. Popper describes how every theory can be proven false, which is true given certain conditions. Popper does report that it is not in search of the prefect theory which cannot be proven wrong, but in search of a better theory that knowledge grows. Popper's examination of verisimilitude is very useful to know. Popper mentioned that clarity is really important to the point of saying that "lack of clarity is a sin, and pretentiousness is a crime", well, unfortunately Popper is not clear in all his writing. Clarity in everything is not possible considering everyone has different values for clarity. It might be that clarity requires prior knowledge (or rather training) in Popper's field which would clear up much of his arguments. The book is well written in most places.

[Katrien Vandenbroeck · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a conglomerate of different writings and essays of Sir. Popper - a well known philosopher of science. To be fair: some parts were rather obscure to me. He for instances illustrates his view in light of Tarski theory of Knowledge - but apart from the idea of correspondence (a statement A is true only and only if a), I did not get everything. I guess that some parts need some level of expertise to be appreciated - an expertise that I, as a matter of fact, do not have. Nevertheless, other chapters I found much more engaging and really reflecting Popper's chore ideas in a way that is much more nuanced that what you might learn from classical textbooks. I'd recommend it, and I'd also like to say: don't be afraid not to get everything from the first read. It's the sort of books you really need to give some time.

[Frank · Rating 3 out of 5]

KP spricht wie ein Wissenschaftler über wissenschaftliche Anliegen.

Die Qualität der Beiträge sind unterschiedlich. Während der Artikeln zur Widerlegbarkeit Wichtiges zur Bewertung wissenschaftlichen Theorien beitragen, bei Über Wolken und Uhren müsste ich mich für KP fremdschaemen, und zur Kapitel ueber Tarskis Wahrheitsbegriffen musste man sich vorerst wappnen.

[John Reis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this book in 1984. I read the first half back then. I found some of his ideas, especially his thoughts: on world 1, world 2 and world 3(a relic of Frege?) to be bizarre, (he thinks recorded ideas are different from ideas in my head.); and his idea that we never “know” anything, as it is wrong and will be proven wrong at some point in the future.

Some quotes:

“In short, there is no such thing as induction by repetition.” “Induction turns out to play no integral part in epistemology or in the method of sciences and the growth of knowledge.”

“... we must regard all laws or theories as hypothetical or conjectural; that is, as
guesses.”

“All theories are hypotheses; all may be overthrown.”

“This led me to the view that all languages are theory-impregnated.” Or, “knowledge never begins from nothing, but always from some background knowledge.” “There is no sense organ in which anticipatory theories are not genetically incorporated.” In disagreement with that last statement I think about what was thought before the 1st double slit experiment was done.

“... all science, and all philosophy, are enlightened common sense.”

“My first thesis is thus that our starting point is common sense, and that our great instrument for progress is criticism.”

“The quest for certainty, for a secure basis of knowledge has to be abandoned.”

He waffles throughout the book making odd statements on various subjects then pulling back on that vary statement.

He is though a metaphysical realist, though he only offers arguments against idealism: Kantian and Berkeleian.

“Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher.)” Probably the best sentence in the book.

“The common sense theory of knowledge is radically mistaken and every point.”

“Scientific theories can never be “justified” or verified.” “The aim of science is increase of verisimilitude.”

“The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.” This is his most famous position on philosophy of science
I still do but I have mellowed with time.

His notion of scientific progress is stated in the following equation:
P1  TT  EE  P2.
We are faced with a problem which leads us to developing tentative theories to test it, which amounts to attempts to eliminate errors, which leads us to a new problem. There is never, so to speak, any success. There is just tentativeness until we replace it something just as tentative.

My favorite chapter is called “Of Clouds and Clocks” in which he takes on the question of determinism and declares that only clouds exist. To say otherwise is to destroy the idea of creativity.

His chapter on Tarski’s theory of truth is also quite excellent.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

3 1/2 stars. There's some great Popperian stuff here, but he concedes a great deal in the second appendix of this revised edition. He basically says that his answers to comparing the contents of predecessor and successor theories, his formulation of verismilitude, and his analysis of crucial experiments in physics are all faulty. And he doesn't provide any real answers to any of the criticisms of them.

[Sherwin]

I introduce this to my friends as best introduction to Popperian viewpoint.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of THE classics in the philosophy of science. I defy you to read this without agreeing vehemently. And disagreeing just as vehemently.

[Craig Bolton]

Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach by Karl R. Popper (1972)

[Alexandre Guay]

Un essentiel pour comprendre la position réaliste en épistémologie.

[Lysergius · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very much based on the scientific method of disproving hypotheses.

[Alex Taremwa]

This should be a must read material o0r even a must posses because one can use it at their own digression. It's expiration date is forever.

[Minh Nhật · Rating 4 out of 5]

xử được món nợ của 3 năm rồi T^T

[Davit Akelyan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fundamental work for all interested in philosophy of science. Rationality, critical thinking, methodology and fallibilism are the main covered topics.

[Samuel Massicotte · Rating 3 out of 5]

La connaissance objective regroupe les plus grands essais et conférences de Karl Popper qui porte sur la connaissance et ses liens avec la science.
Un des arguments le plus couramment poussé tout au long de la collection est le refus du problème de l’induction présenté par Hume. Popper ne tente pas de répondre directement à l’énigme posé par Hume. Il présente plutôt l’idée que le problème de l’induction n’est pas un problème du tout puisque l’induction n’existe pas. Cela cours à l’encontre d’à peu près tout autre position sur le problème de l’induction. Selon Popper, l’induction n’est pas un processus réel mais une illusion que notre esprit concocte à partir de l’interprétation que nous avons sur comment notre esprit fonctionne. Selon Popper, dès la naissance, nous posons des hypothèses. Ces hypothèses sont soit confirmé ou réfuté. Effectivement, il applique sa théorie d’évaluation déductive dans les sciences à même les processus mentaux de l’humain. Popper s’assure de pouvoir presser son idée originale de conjectures et réfutations pour en sortir le plus de jus possible. Tout au long de la collection, il ramène toutes ses contributions à la science pour s’assurer qu’on ne l’oublie pas. Je trouvais que cet aspect de Popper manquait un peu d’humilité, mais qui suis-je pour en juger?
J’ai remarqué à travers l’ouvrage que plusieurs de ses conférences rapportent des thèmes dont j’ai déjà vu chez certains scientifiques, notamment dans le zeitgeist des années 70. Les influences de Popper se font ressentir très fortement dans la théorie du chaos et les difficultés à isoler tous les variables inter-dépendants au sein d’un système complexe et chaotique. J’ai particulièrement aimé sa conférence portant sur le spectre allant d’un nuage à une horloge quant à l’indéterminisme et le déterminisme. Cependant, je trouve que les conclusions qu’il en prend sont un peu biaisées, surtout lorsqu’il présente ses idées sur la volonté libre. J’ai tout de même apprécié le livre, bien que je l’ai trouvé un peu sec à mon goût. Ce n’est pas un livre de tablette, s’en est certain. C’est un livre qui se fait décortiquer et analysé section par section, bout par bout.

[T. Tokunaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

【Objective Knowledge / Karl Popper (1979 revised version, Clarendon Press)】

You would be surprised at Popper calling Churchill an epistemologist from his refutation to idealism in P43 (Chapter 2) of this book. Or you would be even more surprised at his "prediction" of books written by computer (in this case, an almost infinite list of logarithm) in P115 (Chapter 3). What disturbs philosophers of science about Popper is this playful - and often unrestricted - attitude which doesn't fit the specialized hard science, or does not work even as a groundwork for it. Instead, he did a broader work, applicable for much wider range of pursuits.

--Beethoven's notebooks for the last movements tells the story of his attempts to solve the problem -- the problem of breaking into words. To see this helps our understanding of the music and musician. Whether this understanding helps our enjoyment of the music is a different question. (PP182-3, Chapter 4. On the Theory of Objective Mind)

It's really a clever observation: it tells us the intention of textual studies is in need of decision by ourselves: enjoyment or problem-solving. Even though this book itself would be outdated if we really talk about evolution in a biological sense, it would be still of great potential when it comes to literature and epistemology, just like his "evolution" includes Herbert Spencer and Samuel Butler, with a consideration of trans-cultural communication to criticise Wittgenstein (P313, Chapter 8 'A Realist View of Logic, Physics, and History')

--But there is nothing wrong about armchairs (Tadashi's note: not being practical). They have faithfully supported Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein; Bohr, Pauli, de Broglie, Heisenberg, and Dirac; and Schrödinger, in both his physical and biological speculations. (P272, 7 'Evolution and the Tree of Knowledge')

--An observation always presupposes the existence of some system of expectations. (P344, Appendix 1)

[David Moss · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book has a range of subjects, and sometimes reminded me of Michael Polanyi's Tacit Knowledge wherein the author proves their understanding of physics in order to support some more localized theory. So it's not as smooth a read as The Open Society and its Enemies.
But the real gem is how Popper prefigured memetics. He got so close with his discussion of the 3rd world of ideas separate from the human mind, and the emergence that occurs because of this 3rd world. It's surprising Dawkins didn't reference this book, since it feels like he must have read it while writing The Selfish Gene.
The best parts are about using criticism as selection to do away with theories that correspond less well with facts, instead of trying to build up definitions and proofs to assert something as 'true'.

[Sam Christian · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first text I read by Karl Popper. His resolution of the induction fallacy and description of the emergent properties of the scientific method inspired me to understand my own learning in a whole new way. This was also one of the first books that exposed me to the vast gap between my own thinking and the accomplishments of an intellectual master.

[Alican Tüzün · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first two chapters provide enough insight into the Popperian perspective, which I personally do not align with. However, my 4-star rating is not due to this disagreement but rather the abstract nature of the text. Such abstractness is typical of philosophical works, particularly when the author leans toward Platonic explanations.

[Volkan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave it 4 stars not because the book didn't deserve 5, but simply because the book is written in a rather technical way and therefore hard to grasp from time to time. Popper states that we should not search for knowledge or regularities. Science tells us that regularities occur hardly anywhere else in the universe, and if they occur somwhere (on earth, say) they are liable to occur for periods which will be short from a cosmological point of view. Consequently, Popper rejects the scientific method of induction. Rather, the growth of knowledge derives from the mofidication of previous knowledge by means of conjectures (theories, hypothesis etc.) and refutations, as it never begins from nothing, but always from some background knowledge.

According to Popper, criticism is the main instrument in promoting the growth of our knowledge about the world of facts, and logic the organon of criticism in our search for true and highly informative theories. At the same time, Popper states that we have no criterion of truth, that even a false conjecture may be nearer or less near to the truth, and that we should therefore speak of versimilitude: the idea of nearness to the truth, or of a better approximation to the truth. Being able to say that Einstein's theory of gravity is not true, but that it is a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, is regarded by Popper as a major fundament of the methodology of the natural sciences.

Ending this review with three of my favorite quotes from the book:
- "..It is only science which replaces the elimination of error in the violent struggle for life by non-violent rational criticism, and which allows us to replace killing (world 1, the physical world) and intimidation (world 2, in the world of our conscious experience) by the impersonal arguments of world 3 (the world of the logical contents of books, libraries, computer memories and suchlike)."

- "..We hopefully believe in realism, and this hopefulness is not a rational one for there are at least some arguments in 'scientific realism' which make us predict the ultimate destruction of all life. ..However, it is not irrational to hope as long as we live- and actions and decisions are constantly forced upon us."

- "Scientists try to elimate their false theories, they try to let them die in their stead. The believer- whether animal or man- perishes with his false beliefs."

[F B · Rating 1 out of 5]

>ObJeCtIvE
>Gets trashed by countless scientists
>People still believe this is a dogma

[Jayu Eleuthéria · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read when Popper is not talking about Churchill.

[Tadas Turonis · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best explanations of knowledge.