popper (3)

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Popper’s Double Standard of Scientificity in Criticizing Marxism

Hristos Verikukis

http://clogic.eserver.org/2007/Verikukis.pdf

[excerpt]
...
Despite the inconsistency in his argument, Popper never withdrew his
charge against Marxism in terms of falsifiability and continued to
support his “situational analysis” as the only social science; his
disciples continue to do the same. As it becomes obvious from the
above, Popper employs two different notions of science which are
applied at will on two competing theories. According to the first
notion, science=falsifiability; this notion is applied to Marxism in
order to disqualify it as science. According to the second notion,
science!=falsifiability (since verisimilitude breaks down and cannot
play the role Popper hoped it would); this is applied to Popper’s
own version of social science in order to qualify it as scientific. In
other words, for his version of social science (“situational
analysis”), Popper employs a principle (i.e., a law), the R.P., that
is either false (falsified, as Popper himself admits, note 18) or
non-testable (unfalsifiable, note 16). This involves a double
contradiction that amounts to a double standard: on the one hand,
Popper’s “situational analysis” contradicts his falsifiabilty
principle and his deductivism (his scheme require a falsifiable law
which, if falsified, should be removed and replaced); on the other, it
contradicts his criticism of Marxism (he applies falsifiability on
Marxism but not on his “situational analysis”). To put it in
another way, Popper’s version of social science, “situational
analysis,” which he takes to be the only method appropriate for the
social sciences (Popper (1985), p. 358), involves a law, the R.P.,
that is non-testable, i.e., unfalsifiable, and false; yet, he claims
its scientificity. At the same time, he accuses Marxism of being
non-scientific because it involves laws that are mostly unfalsifiable,
while those laws that are falsifiable have been falsified. This double
standard of scientificity in criticizing Marxism, I think, is
sufficient ground to invalidate his criticism in terms of falsifiability.

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********