Philosophy
For general philosophy discussions.
This group is available to everyone except Jordan Peterson.
Note: By posting in this group you confirm that you are not Jordan Peterson.
Group photo philosopher: Rosa Luxemburg
Cover photo philosophers: Bertrand Russell / Leon Chwistek
Organizer (1)
- Organized by
-
Critical thinking
Critical thinking
updated 1 month, 2 weeks ago 2 Members · 5
Posts 
Karl Popper developed critical rationalism as a philosophy during the middle of the 20th century. Popper’s approach is based on the naturalistic idea that society has developed through a process of solving problems using trial and error. The natural and social sciences have been born out of such problem solving and progressed by subjecting potential theories to vigorous testing and criticism. Falsified theories are rejected. Popper calls for a society which is conducive to such problem solving, a society which permits bold theorizing followed by unfettered criticism, a society in which there is a genuine possibility of change in the light of criticism: an open society.
Do we agree?
Or do we lend towards teleological historicism, as espoused by Herbert Butterfield, an enquiry which attempts to construct a narrative view of history as a progressive march in one direction; towards an inevitable end point?
Or neither?
Could it be both? Certainly when it comes to the natural sciences, the test is a test against an unchanging reality, meaning that the scientific process will ultimately lead to the same answer, even if say, we were to destroy all of our scientific knowledge and start from scratch.
Absolutely, having said that, there’s a few issues with historicism as a perspective I cannot get past, in that, human history is a single unique event, knowledge of the past therefore does not necessarily help one to know the future, the evolution of life on earth, or of human society, is a unique historical process… Its description, however, is not a law, but only a singular historical statement, study of history may reveal trends. However, there is no guarantee that these trends will continue, it stands to reason I think that Individual human action or reaction can never be predicted with certainty, therefore neither can the future, the human factor is ultimately the uncertain and wayward element in social life and in most social institutions, otherwise, I’m cool with historicism ?
Oh I definitely agree when it comes to human society and even a future course of events (the generalities of the death of the universe aside)
Apparently, we’re going to run out of oxygen in a billion years, so I’m thinking that nihilism may be the most congruent course of action ?
Log in to reply.
