Or you can do both, or neither at all! Whatever floats your boat, turns your crank, or cheeses your macaroni....(Bleaugh, that sounded pornographic.)
Uncle Stinky
9-16-03
History 600
Karl R. Popper. The Poverty of Historicism. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1960. Pp. 169.
Karl. R. Popper’s The Poverty of Historicism is Popper’s own criticism of the mode of thought that he calls “historicism.” Historicism, according to Popper, “…[is] an approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the ‘rhythms’ or the ‘patterns’, the ‘laws’ or the ‘trends’ that underlie the evolution of history.” It is because of the prevalence of historicism, Popper asserts, that theoretical social sciences are in a horrible state of affairs.
The Poverty of Historicism can be divided basically into two sections. In the first section, Popper himself tries to give an accurate account of what historicism actually is. He does this because he wants to inform his readers of the theory before criticizing it. An interesting point Popper makes is that historicists themselves have not clearly explained historicism, at least not in a fully developed form. The second section shows Popper’s arguments to support his thesis that historicism is a very poor method, and that, basically, it is flatly impossible to predict the future course of history.
The first section itself may be divided into two sections. Popper points out that there are two types of doctrines that compose historicism: those favoring the methods of the natural sciences, such as physics, and those that do not.
Since historicism is mainly “anti-naturalistic,” Popper explains several historicist doctrines in this camp first. Historicists claim that, unlike physical laws, sociological laws depend on a particular historical situation, “for they depend upon history, and upon differences in culture.” One should be certain to note the period of time when discussing sociological laws. Generalizing methods are impossible, historicists claim, because social uniformities are man-made, and can be changed.
When it comes to experiments, historicists say that they are unapplicable in sociology, because it is impossible to repeat experiments under similar conditions. The reason is because conditions are always changed by the previous experiment. Nothing can repeat itself precisely, says the historicist. Predictions are extremely difficult, because the prediction itself has influences upon the predicted. Therefore, exact and detailed scientific social predictions are impossible. There is very little, claims the historicist, in the social sciences that resemble the objectivity in the natural sciences.
Unlike the natural sciences, which are atomistic, social sciences are holistic. The social group is more than just the sum total of its members. The historicist maintains that we must study the history of social groups before a prediction can be delivered. A social event is understood when the forces that brought it about, its situational value, and its underlying historical trends and tendencies are analyzed.
Physical laws are quantitative, but the historicist claims that sociological laws cannot be, because it is impossible to express economic systems and governments, for instance, in such terms. Therefore, sociological laws must always be qualitative in nature. Historicists believe that natural sciences are nominalistic, where universal terms are merely labels. However, social sciences are essentialistic, where the essence of something is emphasized. An unchanging essence of a thing, such as a social group, can only be known through changes in the group; therefore, a social group can only be known through its history. Concepts used to describe these social groups must be historical.
Popper then explains certain “pro-naturalistic” doctrines of historicism. Historicists believe that certain methods, such as prediction with the help of laws, are common to both the natural and social sciences. Newtonian theory, which made long-term forecasts possible in astronomy, impresses historicists, and they claim that the social sciences should aim as high, even though, again, exact precision of such predictions are impossible. Since these sociological forecasts must be historical, they must be governed by historical laws. Historicists maintain that the only universally valid laws of society link successive periods in history. They must be laws of historical development.
When it comes to the predictions, there are two different kinds in the practical value point of view: prophecy and engineering. A prophecy warns us of something, though we have no control over it; an engineering prediction informs us of steps we can take to achieve something. Historicists, however, disavow engineering predictions. According to them, we can only interpret the direction a society will go; we cannot aid it, no matter how hard we try.
After explaining several main tenets of historicism, Popper then begins his attack on the theory. However, he points out that both historicism and the opposition advocate a practical approach to both the study and method of social sciences; he then explains briefly the certain aspects of the “technological approach,” which he himself advocates. The technological approach is like that of the engineering prediction; Popper states that “the social sciences have developed very largely through…attempts to find out whether or not some particular economic or political action is likely to produce an expected, or desired result.”
Popper then begins the attack on anti-naturalistic doctrines of historicism by saying that this approach runs contrary of the holistic approach, which maintains a remodeling and description of an entire society. Popper claims that this is impossible, for unexpected results of remodeling will force the holistic engineer to engage in “piecemeal” improvements, which wouldn’t make it that much different from “piecemeal social engineering” at all. “A scientific description of a whole, concrete social situation,” notes Popper, is impossible, for “it would always be easy to point out aspects which have been neglected; aspects that may nevertheless be most important in some context or other.”
Historicists claim that social experiments can only be performed on a holistic scale. Popper claims that this is not the case; a grocer opening up a new shop is a social experiment, he says. Piecemeal experiments are extremely fundamental for social knowledge; experiments should be a “means of acquiring knowledge.” Popper claims that learning from a holistic experiment is extremely difficult, if impossible, for “…it is very hard to learn from very big mistakes.” Simply put, since there are so many events happening in a social group as a whole, it is impossible to pinpoint which caused a result.
Popper next attacks the notion that the social sciences cannot be submitted to the experimental method because the same conditions applied to natural scientific experiments cannot be applied to the social sciences, most notably artificial isolation. Popper asserts that complete isolation, even in the natural sciences, is impossible. For instance, we do not know whether the influence of the position of the moon on a physical experiment is a large or small one.
Popper then criticizes the doctrine that generalizations are confined to historical periods. He points out that historicists are wrong in one aspect by making the example of Crete and Greenland. Crete and Greenland have very different physical environments; yet the same physical laws pertain to both. Kepler’s laws are not just valid to our solar system, Popper adds. Why should social sciences be any different? To the claim that changes in the social environment are more fundamental, Popper replies that physical atoms also change with environment. Popper tries to show in this section that the so-called “anti-naturalistic” doctrines of historicism aren’t really anti-naturalistic at all; the natural sciences share some of the same characteristics.
The last section of the book shows Popper attacking the “pro-naturalistic” doctrines of historicism, especially the one that claims that laws of historical development should be sought after. He begins by asking the question “Is there actually a law of evolution?” He states there isn’t, because the description of evolution is simply a historical statement, not a law. Popper asserts that laws must be tested in order to be taken seriously, and there is no way of testing a universal hypothesis if we only observe one unique process, which Popper claims the evolutionary process to be. Popper quotes H.A.L. Fisher, who succinctly sums up Popper’s argument: “Men…have discerned in history a plot, a rhythm, a predetermined pattern…I can see only one emergency following upon another…, only one great fact with respect to which, since it is unique, there can be no generalizations…”
Popper also stresses that trends should never be used as a basis for scientific predictions, because they lead to tendencies, which obviously have exceptions. Historicism’s central mistake, he claims, is that their “laws of development” are trends. There is no such thing as an “absolute trend,” Popper notes.
Popper’s argument that the use of trends, rhythms, et cetera in the evolution of history to predict historical occurrences is impossible certainly is convincing. His argument that historicism is an extremely poor method for studying the social sciences is convincing as well. Popper’s main point that historicists use “tendencies” to predict the future scientifically leads one to think why they would not try to use something more concrete to predict; the answer may be that there isn’t anything concrete at all. The social sciences focus on people; predicting events based on beings with a will to do whatever they want seems extremely foolish. Just because France had a revolution in the late 1780’s does not mean that Slovakia will do the same if they experience similar circumstances two hundred years from now. We just don’t know what the future holds; man is too unpredictable.
wee.. cool..
*her boat floats*
HAHAH that sounded wrong. o well. it wasnt ment to be XP.
*Reads the first paragraph*
*Falls asleep*
XD
Hmmmm..
*Looks at Topic Title*
*DAIS* heh
wth, i won't read all that stuff O-o
hmph, you try and share some knowledge with the group and they all go to sleep...<__<;;
uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................. :hablah:
"Read or Die" Is a four episode anime, which is actually quite good.
