Table Of ContentRA TIONALITY IN SCIENCE AND POLITICS
BOSTON STUDIES IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
EDITED BY ROBERT S. COHEN AND MARX W. WARTOFSKY
VOLUME 79
RA TI 0 N ALITY IN
SCIENCE AND POLITICS
Edited by
GUNNAR ANDERSSON
Universitiit Trier
...
D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY
A MEMBER OF THE KLUWER " ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP
DORDRECHTj BOSTON j LANCASTER
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Rationality in science and politics.
(Boston studies in the philosophy of science; v. 79)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Science-Philosophy. 2. Science-Social aspects. 3. Rationalism.
4. Radnitzky, Gerard. I. Andersson, Gunnar, 1942- II. Series.
Q174.B67 vol. 79 [Q175] 00i'.01s [149'.7] 83-21242
ISBN-I3: 978-90-277-1953-9 e-ISBN-I3: 978-94-009-6254-5
001: 10.1007/978-94-009-6254-5
The papers by Hans Albert, Paul Feyerabend, B. Kanitscheider, Kurt Salamun,
and Ernst Topitsch were translated from the German by John Krois
Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company,
P.O. Box 17,3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland
Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada
by Kluwer Academic Publishers,
190 Old Derby Street, Hingham, MA 02043, U.S.A.
In all other countries, sold and distributed
by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group,
P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, Holland
First published in 1984 in hardbound edition
All Rights Reserved
© 1984, 1985 by D. Reidel Publishing Company
No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner
To Gerard Radnitzky
on His Sixtieth Birthday
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
EDITORIAL PREFACE ix
PREFACE ~
GUNNAR ANDERSSON I Creativity and Criticism in Science and
Politics 1
JOSEPH AGASSI I The Social Base of Scientific Theory and Practice 15
HANS ALBERT I Transcendental Realism and Rational Heuristics:
Critical Rationalism and the Problem of Method 29
GUNNAR ANDERSSON I How to Accept Fallible Test Statements?
Popper's Criticist Solution 47
W. W. BARTLEY, III I Logical Strength and Demarcation 69
PAUL K. FEYERABEND I Xenophanes: A Forerunner of Critical
Rationalism? 95
ERNEST GELLNER I The Social Roots of Modern Egalitarianism 111
ADOLF GRONBAUM I Explication and Implications of the Placebo
Concept 131
B. KANITSCHEIDER I Analytic and Synthetic Philosophy 159
NORETTA KOERTGE I Ethical Problems in Science Communication 191
HIROSHI NAGAI I A Philosophical Conception of Finality in Biol-
ogy 205
MARCELLO PERA I The Justification of Scientific Progress 221
KARL R. POPPER I Against Induction: One of Many Arguments 245
KURT SALAMUN I The Problem of Ideology and Critical Ration-
alism 249
IRENA SZUMILEWICZ-LACHMAN I Poincare versus Le Roy on
Incommensurability 261
ERNST TO PITSCH I On Early Forms of Critical Rationalism 277
GUNNAR ANDERSSON I Gerard Radnitzky: From Positivism, via
Critical Theory, to Critical Rationalism 289
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS 297
INDEX OF NAMES 301
EDITORIAL PREFACE
This remarkable collection of essays, diverse but united by the theme of
critical reasoning, testifies to the attention and respect paid by the authors
to the philosophical career of Gerard Radnitzky. We, too, greet Professor
Radnitzky for his decades of intellectual labor devoted to the establishment
of rational analysis of human problems.
Not least of his concerns has been to understand what it is to be rational, to
disentangle the apparently rational and the genuine, to separate dogma from
justified belief, to cherish imagination while seeking its test. If Radnitzky
has long been known for his careful elaboration of the spectrum of modem
approaches to epistemology, those who have gathered to celebrate his work
in this volume will also be widely known for their own writings on this
matter of critical methodology. Their signposts (or are they warning lights?)
will be familiar to thoughtful philosophers and scientists, and they appear
as queries as we read these papers: the rational heuristic and the irrational
heuristic? accepting the fallible? differing societies but one rational cognitive
practice? accepting evidence which is placebogenic? choosing among the
incommensurables? what remains of the logic of demarcation? purpose in
nature? progress of science? rationality in politics? a humane reasonableness
and a critical rationalism?
Gunnar Andersson sets the focus well for the reader. We need not choose
between dogmatism and relativism, he argues. And then he tells the political
lesson: we might avoid both anarchy and despotism. We ourselves need not
wholly agree as to the power of clear and critical thinking in social affairs to
applaud Andersson's hope. And we too may hope that a critical scientific
approach to human problems will bring practical reason together with af
firmative traditions. How far rationality will take us, faced as we are by
seemingly endless conflicts and scarcities, is far from certain, but to find the
power and the role of rationality in our sciences of nature and of humankind
is a crucial step toward self-dependence.
January 1984
Center for Philosophy and History of Science ROBER T S. COHEN
Boston University
Department ofP hilosophy MARX W. WARTOFSKY
Baruch College, City University of New York
PREFACE
The present collection of papers has been edited to honour Gerard Radnitzky
on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday in July 1981. Editorial complications
have delayed the appearance of the volume. The collected papers are grouped
around Radnitzky's own interest in philosophy of science and political
philosophy.
The papers of Hans Albert, Paul Feyerabend, B. Kanitscheider, Kurt
Salamun, and Ernst Topitsch were originally written in German. I wish to
thank Dr. John Krois for having translated them into English.
Trier, October 1982 GUNNAR ANDERSSON
GUNNAR ANDERSSON
CREA TIVITY AND CRITICISM IN SCIENCE AND POLITICS
1. THE DUALISM BETWEEN FACTS AND VALUES
Are there any important similarities between rational ways of solving pro
blems in such different areas as science and politics? The aim of science is to
describe the world hypothetically, to tell us what there is. The aim of politics
is to bring about a desirable social organization. In this area problems about
what ought to be are fundamental, and hence politics has a moral dimension
transcending science. The dualism between is and ought, between facts and
values, makes the idea that there are important similarities between scientific
and political rationality problematic. Such ideas are often regarded as ex
pressions of scientism, of the modern illusion that all problems can be solved
by science and technology.
The dualism between facts and values makes it impossible to solve moral
and political problems with science and technology alone. Science describes
the world hypothetically and can help us to find technological means which
are efficient in order to realize given ends. Science and technology has to do
with the rationality of means. Hence knowledge is power. How should this
knowledge be used? Which ends should be realized with our technological
means? These moral and political problems go beyond the sphere of science
and technology. They have to do with rationality of ends.
Rationality of ends is more important than rationality of means. Efficient
means can be used in very different ways. Our present situation with very
efficient means of destruction and with means of production with con
siderable negative ecological side effects makes the ambiguous character of
rational means very clear.
The dualism between facts and values has led many modern philosophers
to think that there is a radical dualism between science and politics and that
they belong to totally different dimensions. Some philosophers concentrate
on scientific problems and do not think that much can be said about moral
and political problems. Other philosophers think that the exclusive con
centration on scientific and technological rationality has led to a situation in
which efficient means of production and destruction are used in a rather
irrational way. They think that the very important dimension of morals and
Gunnar Andersson (ed.) , Rationality in Science and Politics, 1-14.
© 1984 by D. Reidel Publishing Company.
2 GUNNAR ANDERSSON
politics has been forgotten or exorcized by a superficial scientistic and
positivistic criticism.
As to the problem how moral and political problems should be solved,
most modem philosophers maintain that ultimately they are solved by a
decision to accept certain values, standards, and ends. Polar philosophical
schools such as positivism and existentialism agree on this point. In positivism
the emotional and non-scientific character of this choice is emphasized, in
existentialism its autonomous and committing character. In both schools
it is problematic in what sense such political and ethical choices can be said
to be· rational.
In critical rationalism it is also maintained that moral and political pro
blems ultimately are solved by decisions. But it is denied that such decisions
have to be arbitrary or irrational. According to this philosophy decisions are
necessary not only in politics but also in science. In science there is no
method leading to absolute truth, but we have to choose which hypotheses
to accept. Such choices should be made on the basis of a critical examination
of the hypotheses discussed, especially on the basis of an examination of their
testable consequences.
Criticism and investigation of consequences are important not only in
science but also in politics in order to be able to choose and decide in a
rational way. Not only in science but also in politics there is a vast difference
between an arbitrary and blind choice, and a reasoned choice made with open
eyes and with full awareness of consequences and alternatives. Thus criticism
is important for rational choice both in science and in politics.
There is a second similarity between science and politics. In science there
is no method leading automatically to new hypotheses, but creative imagina
tion is necessary in order to fmd something new. In politics creativity is
equally necessary in order to fmd solutions to political problems, in order
to be able to make political proposals.
Both in science and politics a rational way of solving problems consists
in an interplay between creativity and criticism. Possible solutions of pro
blems are found by creative imagination and have to be critically examined.
Creativity and criticism are not opposed but complement one another, and
their interplay is essential for any branch of human culture.
To maintain that creativity and criticism are important both in science
and politics is not an expression of scientism. It is not maintained that
science alone can solve all kinds of political problems, or that the same kind
of creativity or criticism is needed in both areas. It is only maintained that
there are important similarities between rational ways of solving problems
