Next: The Amateur Prophets
Up: The Historicists
Previous: The Historicists
According to Popper's ``The Poverty of Historicism'',
all attempts to formulate laws of historical development must fail.
The reason is straightforward: the level of scientific knowledge in a
society is one of the important determinants of that society's nature.
Consider, for example, how futile it would be for a prophet with no
knowledge of electricity to attempt to predict our current way of life.
The ideas current in science affect society in two ways: directly, by
their effect on the intellectual life of the citizens; and indirectly,
by their application to technology. Yet, Popper argues, it is
intrinsically impossible to predict tomorrow's science; if we could predict
it, it would already be today's science. And to this I would add that
it is impossible to predict tomorrow's techology, even when it's based on
today's science. Consider, for example, that the scientific basis for the
computer had been established for decades at the time when Watson, the
CEO of IBM, made his notorious prediction that the future US should not need
more than ten computers.
While arguing for laws of historical development, the
historicists simultaneously deny any possibility of there being timeless laws of
human behaviour. For them, the laws of human behaviour change with the form of society,
and the form of society evolves along the lines set out in their particular philosophy.
Thus, for example, Marxists are among the loudest critics of such theories as sociobiology.
But, says Popper, there are many timeless laws of human behaviour. He gives a number
of examples, including Lord Acton's law:
You cannot give a man power over other men without tempting him to misuse it - a temptation which
roughly increases with the amount of power wielded, and which very few are capable of resisting.
Popper's criticism of historicism extends to the idea of progress. If progress were inevitable,
this would be an example of a successful historicist law. However, Popper concludes that
progress is not inevitable (recall the thousand-year intervals of stagnation we skipped over in
Chapter Two.)
Next: The Amateur Prophets
Up: The Historicists
Previous: The Historicists
John Jones 2003-11-25