[Author’s Name]
[Institution’s Name]
Essay on Popper and Hume's Argument Analysis
The situation with Popper's philosophy is most peculiar. There are twelve or twenty folk, the self-styled 'Popperians', who think it is the bee's knees. Most philosophers ignore them. Popper's philosophy of science is popular among scientists. Most philosophers of science think it fatally flawed. Popper talks about 'The Growth of Scientific Knowledge'. Most philosophers regard him as a sceptic who thinks scientists know nothing. Popper says he is a 'critical rationalist' and extols the virtues of reason. He is one of the Four Irrationalists discussed in a recent book of that name. The problem of induction is the key to all this.
Popper said, famously and immodestly, 'I think I have solved a major philosophical problem: the problem of induction'. He admitted that 'few philosophers' agree with him. He said this was because 'few philosophers have taken the trouble to study … my views' (1972, p. 1). Popper's explanation of his neglect is as insulting as it is mistaken. Many philosophers have studied his views and found them wanting. The most important reason for the peculiar state of affairs regarding Popper's philosophy is that his solution to the problem of induction is rejected.
That is why Popper is dismissed as a sceptic and an irrationalist. That is why the Popperian edifice is viewed as a house of cards, which collapses as soon as its foundation is scrutinised.What exactly is Popper's solution to the problem of induction? But the Popperians object violently to my views, and accuse me of a litany of sins (justificationism, psychologism, messing about with 'second world considerations', belief philosophy, and so forth). As for Popper himself, he never endorsed my account of what his solution is, and in the course of his own voluminous writings on the matter said things difficult to reconcile with that account. However, neither did Popper ever explicitly reject my account...............
