This article discusses Karl Popper’s emphasis on the importance of conjecture in theory formation and how his definition of observation influenced his arguments. It analyzes Popper’s distinction between observational inference and direct observation, and examines the implications of theory development through the interplay between the role of observation and conjecture.
According to Karl Popper, the development of a theory is an end in itself. The closer we get to the truth as we develop theories, the more we understand the world, which in turn helps us to live in it. In Conjecture and Refutation, Karl Popper highlights conjecture and observation as two of the methods involved in theory formation. In chapter 5, “Return to the Pre-Socratics,” Popper argues that speculation is more important than observation. Let’s take a look at why Karl Popper makes this claim and where he goes wrong.
Before we proceed, we need to define what we mean by observational inference and observation. Observation is the visual experience of an object, regardless of its extent. Observational analogies are analogies between something that is hard to observe in its entirety and some similar phenomenon that is not the entirety of the object. For example, a large-scale object like the Earth is analogized to the phenomenon of something floating in water. Clearly, observational analogies involve observation. Karl Popper arbitrarily calls observational analogies observations in his book, and as a result, he uses the word observation loosely.
In his book, Karl Popper uses examples of various theories from the past to make his point. The theories of Thales and Anaximandros about the shape and position of the earth and the theories of Thales, Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides about change seem to support Popper’s claim that the development of theories is based on speculation. But let’s analyze the examples he cites. Theories about the shape and position of the Earth are aimed at the large scale of the universe. Theories of change are based on the search for the origin of all things, which is very abstract. In other words, they are all based on something that scholars cannot observe in its entirety. Karl Popper argued that technological limitations have led scholars to theorize through observational analogies rather than observing the whole, and that this method has hindered accurate theory formation. These examples certainly seem to favor speculation over observational inference. But what about direct observation as opposed to observational inference?
A classic example of direct observation being actively used to form theories is the discovery of the cell. Cells were first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, when he first observed cork or charcoal under a microscope as small box-like aggregates and named them “cells”. Of course, Hook later realized that what he had discovered was a cell wall. But the important point is that Hooke had a technological tool available to him, the microscope, and he used it to create a theoretical framework for the cell.
Fleming’s discovery of lysozyme and penicillin also illustrates the importance of direct observation. Lysozyme was discovered by chance when Fleming observed wounded soldiers dying of sepsis caused by bacteria. Fleming also observed that blue mold formed on bacteria and killed them, and he used the blue mold to create penicillin.
These are three examples of how direct observation played a crucial role in the development of a theory. Of course, the process of theory formation after observation involves speculating on theories based on observations. However, the discovery of the box shape and the blue mold through direct observation played a crucial role in theory formation. You can’t argue that observation is less important than speculation in the process of theory formation. But why did Karl Popper call observations unimportant? Because he called observational inferences observations. So you can’t argue that observations are not more important than speculations in the process of theory formation. However, Karl Popper said that observations are not more important than conjectures.
By observation, Karl Popper means observational inferences, not observations as we usually know them. Observational inferences have the limitation of observing something other than the target from the beginning. In the end, the misconception that Karl Popper underestimated observation is due to his arbitrary use of words.
As such, a review of Karl Popper’s arguments in the theory formation process can expand our understanding. Karl Popper’s arguments highlight an important aspect of theory development, which helps us gain a deeper understanding of the world. By analyzing the interplay between theory and observation, we can build a better scientific methodology. This is more than just academic; it can also be a useful tool in real life. For example, it helps us learn how to try different approaches when solving complex problems and strengthen our reasoning with the data we get along the way. It’s a process of constant learning and exploration that builds a more robust body of knowledge.
