Karl Popper's Concept Of An Open Society Summary

Good Essays
In the collection of essays, In Search of a Better World, Karl Popper, in which he is most know for rejecting the scientific method, embraces the idea of empirical science. His disagreement stemmed from the notion that science can never be proven, but it may be falsified. These ideas are reflection of previous noted philosophers such as Plato and Socrates with respect to academics, which are expanded upon and are implemented in today’s science society. Popper also explains the concept of an “open society” and its’ relationship with science in order for scientific theories to be valid.

In order to appreciate Popper’s view and support for the Socratic methods of thinking regarding academia, one must first understand the definition of both. Dating
…show more content…
An open society is what Popper believes, associated with cultural and religious diversities, is what continues to challenge the mind because the quest for knowledge is never completed and can be said that learning is an ongoing process. Popper explores the idea of remaining human by suggesting that a journeying to the unknown and uncertainty in an open society will be the only way to identify with humans. An open society is beneficial for the simple fact that we can learn from anyone and will be continuing to learn from people and things around us. We should be open minded to the idea of an open society with respect to the opportunities of discovery that can be taken from those in this type of society. Open societies help us acquire unbiased information in order to determine if theories are sound be gathering information, opinions and data in order to make a concrete fact. By doing so, intellectuals are decreasing the percentage of …show more content…
Whether it is setbacks or celebrations these types of events help shape a person into who they are in the present. Mistakes are essential for the growth and learning process therefore as you learn more and mature, many things in life become an easier for you to grasp. I do agree with Popper for rejection of the “Philosopher King.” Because no one on earth knows everything, not even powerful individuals such as kings and presidents. Humans are disposed to mistakes because we are humans are not born perfect. Science I think is an evolving truth, yet a theory is proposed, in which they can fully be rejected and others only part of it is rejected which adds conflict to the notion. Still, solidifying theories is a learning and discovery process. If knowledge surpasses a theory, it does not mean it was not completely valid, it just means it was time to develop a newer cutting edge theory, with less reject able ideas. Theories are made by human experimentation, which always has some fallacies. Also when knowledge is further explored, new material can shift ideas into new directions. The open society is a blessing for the future because it encourages growth and a peaceful cooperation of people. There may be arguments, but through discussion, these differences can be worked out and stronger relationships may build, which further

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    In result of letting science and technology take its toll in everyday lives, we are losing beliefs and even our original minds that humans were aspired to live with. Although there may not be a way to control how “innovative” the world can be, there are certainly ways to stay alert to the infinite amount of possibilities that can result in malfunctions or even loss of…

    • 1289 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The translators understand the different in language, hence can explain the different worldviews with opposing paradigms, into a new language having all the anomalies and responses. The translations would play the role of persuasion and conversion especially for scientists and theorists helping them realize how the opposing paradigm may have solved some of the problems that may have seemed impossible to solve in their paradigm (202-203). Clearly, the patches in the theory of incommensurability were solved by the phenomenon or use of translators. The presence of meta-values that guide science is one of the main reasons why scientists may convert to new and opposing…

    • 776 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    INTORDUCTION Karl Popper was a philosopher who introduced the idea of conjecture and refutation as a method for conducting scientific inquiry. In the first section I explore Poppers idea of falsification. Popper’s scientific Progression deals with his method of scientific progress while fallacies in Popper’s Perceptions deals with the problems that arise from his theory. Finally I evaluate Popper’s legacy, many scientist still hold Popper’s idea in high esteem even after other ideas emerged. While Popper championed skepticism in scientific theories, there are problems with his theory that led to the rise of other ideas.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Falsification is the notion that, after a theory is created, a scientist must seek to disprove said theory; through such a process, refinement strengthens the theory as scientists remove more possibilities (Popper 33-39). As falsification theory does not prove that the previous model was incorrect, it provides a less emotional way for researchers to develop new ideas. Likewise, the natural sciences possess specific criteria which must be met before an issue is further considered; this can be seen in the underlying mechanism of the scientific method. An observation results in a hypothesis, and experimentation either supports or refutes the hypothesis. Through such structured methodology, a concept becomes a theory, and a theory can then become a law.…

    • 1521 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Although Emerson and Thoreau’s ideas may not benefit us in many of our our careers, there is still much value in reading their works even in today’s highly technological world because it may inspire those who want to break free from society’s guidelines, the world would be much less divided if we followed their ideas, and American people need to learn to become…

    • 1174 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since people experience different kinds of situations, the outcome of the cause will create an effect, which they label as a fact. In addition they both argue that you need background research in order to participate in reasoning an idea or belief. Without any background research your argument will be vague and irrelevant. Scientists should submit rules, or norms, to follow. This will lead to cause less discrepancies and conflicts.…

    • 1409 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Induction Methodology

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The position was taken here is in support of deduction methodology as the best way to approach theory in science. Induction method starts with specific observations to develop a final general statement that explains the phenomena but this does not guarantee the accuracy and the truth of its conclusion. Unlike induction, deduction relies on continuous logical and empirical testing of the hypothesis that should be the foundation of any science. In fact, supporting critical thinking and logic to gain the true knowledge are essential in today’s…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Philosophers continue to revisit these ideas, supporting their initial claims and making counter arguments to rebuttals. While realism supports the idea that science is based on facts and the truth, using scientific theories to accurately depict the world, anti-realism claims that the purpose of science is to find theories that are empirically correct due to one’s own observations of the physical world. Ultimately, the debate of realism and anti-realism concern the aim of science, trying to discover why scientists perform certain actions opposed to others as a result of their individual beliefs. It comprises of the nature of scientific knowledge, how we can attain and are limited by it, and the overall interpretation of the scientific enterprise. Inconsistencies can be highlighted in both arguments, however, both embrace a certain truth if observed through an unbiased perspective.…

    • 1509 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Science deals with our understanding of the physical world around us. We use it to test theories that we’ve formed through observation. By actively testing the theories with the intent of disproving them, we gather more information that supports our idea. However, pseudoscience is a belief that is often presented as being scientific, but does not hold up against the scientific method because it cannot be tested or disproven. Popper discusses that it is an issue when someone considers pseudoscience to be a science.…

    • 1523 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Paradigms must be based on consensus by solving validate or clarify the paradigm. Secondly, Kuhn would not agree that ideas under rigor will lead to truth. Kuhn would agree that Descartes Discourse contributed to scientific knowledge. However, Kuhn would have suggested to Descartes that there are some flaws in his method because Descartes’s rules follow a linear process and Descartes was very systematic in his approach whereas Kuhn would have argued that that paradigms are non-linear but rather undergoes periodic revolutions or paradigm shifts and a transformation occurs within a particular…

    • 700 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays