Critical Rationalism in Everyday Life
Is It Applicable to Politics?
In his book, The Myth of the Framework, Popper stated, "I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement." In short, everything should be open to critical analysis. Nothing is sacred in that regard. Thomas Jefferson said, ""Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
One of Popper's main contributions to political theory was The Open Society and Its Enemies. In it, he reformulates Plato's question of "Who should rule", into "How do we arrange our institutions to prevent rulers (whether individuals or majorities) from doing too much damage." He is probably best known for his principle of falsification. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unrelenting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. Those that aren't are considered metaphysical and exist outside the realm of science. Faith, for example, is not a matter of science. It's metaphysical in nature. On that basis alone subjects such as creationism don't qualify as science.
Popper's protege
One of Popper's students at the London School of Economics was William Warren Bartley III. According to Rafe Champion, Bartley, along with Popper, recognizes "the authoritarian way of thinking which charactorizes Western thought. This creates demands for true or justified beliefs, along the lines indicated by the formula:
"Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it."
"However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism."
David Miller, in his book Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense points to Bartley's formulation of Comprehensively Critical Rationalism: "The new framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundimental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe crititcal fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position.
Political ramifications
What does this hold for political candidates who are expected to adhere to committed positions regardless of the reality that constantly shifts? A politician who holds onto a position in spite of these new unanticipated shifts runs the risk of being viewed as stubborn, out of touch, and ideologically driven. The politician who is willing to shift his views based on new information is viewed as a "flip-flopper", weak, or pandering to whatever the prevailing popular view is. If the politician adopts the views expressed through Comprehensively Critical Rationalism he is attached to no position. He is committed to nothing. The alternative is to be driven by an ideology that is held together by faulty logic and attempts to defy reality by appearing to be driving a square peg into a round hole.
We do like for our politicians to take a position on something, but it seems that some degree of flexibility in that position is required if the policies that are enacted actually benefit those they are intended to serve.
References
Karl Popper, The Karl Popper Web.
Rafe Champion, The Philosophy Site of Rafe Champion
David Miller, Critical Rationalism; A Restatement and Defence
Thomas Jefferson, Famous Quotes
