This blog post examines why Karl Popper emphasized the importance of conjecture in the process of theory formation and how his definition of observation influenced his argument. It analyzes the difference between Popper’s observational inference and direct observation, exploring the meaning of theory development through the interaction between the role of observation and conjecture.
According to Karl Popper, the development of theory holds significance in and of itself. As theories evolve and we approach truth, we gain a more detailed understanding of the world, which aids us in navigating life. In Conjectures and Refutations, Popper focuses on conjecture and observation as key methods accompanying the theory formation process. In Chapter 5, “Return to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers,” Popper argues that conjecture is more important than observation. Let us examine why Popper made this claim and where it may be flawed.
Before proceeding with the main discussion, it is necessary to clearly define the meanings of observational analogy and observation. Observation refers to the visual experience of an object, regardless of its scope. Observational inference refers to inferring an object that is difficult to observe in its entirety through partial, analogous phenomena rather than the object itself. For example, inferring a large-scale object like the Earth from the phenomenon of something floating in water. What is clear is that observational inference necessarily involves observation. In his book, Karl Popper arbitrarily refers to observational inference as observation, resulting in a narrow, specific use of the term ‘observation’.
In his book, Karl Popper presents his argument by citing various past theories as examples. Theories by Thales and Anaximander concerning the shape and position of the Earth, and theories by Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides concerning change, appear to strongly support Popper’s claim that theoretical development is based on conjecture. However, let us analyze the examples Karl Popper mentions. Theories concerning the shape and position of the Earth deal with the vast entity of the cosmos. Theories concerning change deal with the highly abstract pursuit of the origin of all things. That is, these theories all deal with subjects that scholars cannot observe in their entirety. Popper argues that technical limitations forced scholars to establish theories through observational inference without observing the whole, and that this method hindered the formation of accurate theories. In these cases, conjecture certainly appears more decisive than observational inference. So what about direct observation, rather than observational inference?
A prime example of actively utilizing direct observation in theory formation is the discovery of the cell. The cell was first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665. He was the first to observe, using a microscope, that cork or charcoal consisted of small box-shaped aggregates, and he named these small boxes ‘cells’. Of course, it was later revealed that what Hooke had discovered was the cell wall. However, the crucial point is that Hooke had access to the technical tool of the ‘microscope,’ and he used it to contribute to the creation of the theoretical framework of the ‘cell’.
Fleming’s discovery of lysozyme and penicillin also demonstrates the importance of direct observation. Lysozyme was discovered by Fleming quite by accident while observing wounded soldiers dying from bacterial sepsis. Furthermore, Fleming observed that blue mold growing on bacteria caused the bacteria to die, leading him to use the blue mold to create penicillin.
These three cases demonstrate instances where direct observation played a decisive role in theoretical development. Of course, the process of forming a theory after observation necessarily involves speculating about the theory based on the observational results. However, in that process, the discovery of the box shape and the blue mold through direct observation played a decisive role in theory formation. One cannot argue that such observation is less important than conjecture in the theory formation process. So why did Karl Popper claim observation is unimportant? Because he equated observational inference with observation. Ultimately, one cannot argue that such observation is less important than conjecture in the theory formation process. Yet Karl Popper stated that observation is no more important than conjecture.
The observation Karl Popper refers to is not the observation we commonly understand, but rather observational inference. Observational inference inherently carries the limitation that it observes one object rather than another from the very beginning. Ultimately, the misunderstanding that Karl Popper seems to have underestimated observation stems from his arbitrary use of terminology.
In this way, examining Karl Popper’s arguments during the theory formation process can expand our understanding. Popper’s claims emphasize crucial aspects of theoretical development, helping us grasp the world more deeply. By analyzing the interaction between theory and observation, we can build a better scientific methodology. This transcends mere academic significance, becoming a useful tool in real life as well. For instance, it helps us learn to try various approaches when solving complex problems and strengthen our reasoning through the data obtained during that process. This process is one of building a more robust knowledge system through continuous learning and exploration.
