Critical Rationalism and Trust in Science

Abstract

In this paper, I consider whether the critical rationalist philosophy of science may provide a rationale for trusting scientific knowledge. In the first part, I refer to several insights of Karl Popper’s social and political philosophy in order to see whether they may be of help in offsetting the distrust of science spawned by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the second part, I address the more general issue of whether the theoretical principles of the critical rationalist philosophy of science may afford a foundation for building trust in science. Both parts of the discussion, confined for the sake of the argument largely to the repudiation of the concept of good reasons for considering a theory to be true, imply that this question would have to be answered negatively. Against this, I argue that such a conclusion is based on a misconception of the nature of scientific knowledge: critical rationalism views science as a cognitive regime which calls for bold theories and at the same time demands a rigorous and continuous distrust towards them, and it is precisely this attitude that should be adopted as a compelling argument for trusting science.

Politics, Lies, and Moral Exoticism. Re-Reading Hannah Arendt on the Crises of the Republic

“…There is no denying that truth is an elusive concept. Yet, despite the many existing, question-begging, and justifiably criticized definitions, there is a way to make sense of truth by conceiving it as an outcome of a socially established cognitive regime capable of producing reliable and adequate knowledge of the natural and social world (Chmielewski, 2022(Chmielewski, , p. 1687). The problem with today's democracy is that it operates as if such knowledge were no longer relevant.…”

A Future Trend for Science Education: A Constructivism-Humanism Approach to Trans-Contextualisation

“…In supporting the introduction of a 4th phase, seeking to bridge the "classroom-society" divide, interviewees indicated that this needed careful attention. All interviewees recog-nised the need for science education to address "the future we want" [23] and, in so doing, accepted there was a potential need to go beyond the 3-stage model and, hence, agreed with the need, as expressed in the literature, to prepare a collective body of citizens who are actively [9], scientifically [10] and collectively [4] able to participate in resolving encountered societal concerns.…”

“…Additionally, second, there seemed to be a lack of ability, at both individual and collective levels, to reconcile such a science-influenced society dilemma [7,8]. This could be seen as raising the question as to whether promoting conceptually science-informed individuals is sufficient, or whether there is a further need to embrace a wider vision of science education, such as preparing a collective body of citizens who actively [9], scientifically [10] and collectively [4] participate in resolving encountered societal concerns.…”

Critical thinking and hypothetic-deductive scheme for studying the elements of quantum theory

“…It is well known that classical rationalism is associated with the deductive method of cognition, when knowledge about the world can be obtained only with the "pure mind", its undoubted "innate" ideas and strictly logical reasoning that are not based on experience. It means forwarding 1499 bold theories and a constant lack of trust in them [22]. The rejection of empirical data was justified by the fact that the undoubted "innate" ideas of the pure mind are the most general truths from which less general truths can be derived by deduction.…”