In Defence of Critical Rationalism

Abstract

The early Greek philosophers invented the tradition of adopting critical attitude towards explanations that were robed in mythic garbs. They not only challenged the explanations of the ancients, they also criticized and falsified long standing traditions with empirical observations and tests. This attitude to knowledge is what Karl Popper described as critical rationalism. Critical rationalists believe that scientific theory or any other claim to knowledge can and should be rationally criticized and if they have empirical content can and should be subjected to tests which may falsify them. Claims to knowledge that are potentially falsifiable can be admitted to the body of empirical science while not foreclosing further falsification. But this kind of rationalism was faulted by some philosophers including Paul Feyerabend who argued that it may not be easy for science to grow by the rules of critical rationalism but that scientific knowledge will be better off with the method of ‘anything goes’. The objective of this paper was to critically evaluate some of the criticisms against critical rationalism to ascertain their validity or otherwise. The analytic method was used. The paper is of the view that the rejection of critical rationalism and the recommendation of anarchism for the growth of science is misplaced because lawlessness breeds neither growth nor knowledge. Keywords: Critical rationalism, Falsification, Anything-goes, Conjectures, Knowledge