Philosophia Vol. 6 Nos. 3-4 Ps'. 463.4o Septem rDecemt'er tum / CRITICAL STUI)Y THE PhIlOSOPhY OF KARL POPPER PART!: BIOLOGY & EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY W.W. hARTLEY, Ill TilE PhILOSOPHY OP KARL POPPER edited by Paul A. Schilpp, Two volumes, Open Court, Library of Living Philosophers, La Salle, 1974, 1323 pp., $30.00. The philosophical perspective celebrated in the latest member of the distinguished Schilpp series is the most radical yet presented in The Library of Living Philosophers. Radical for this simple reason: Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers tlte world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper's way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.* I believe that Karl Popper is on the right track. I ant a bit reluctant to admit this. For although I spent the first ten years of lny professional life in close collaboration with Popper and his ideas, I snt the second decade o( my career, only recently • elapsed, trying to avoid both. From 1 955 to 1958 I studied Popper's work intensively at llarvard despite the warnings of my teachers • there about this "difficult man". In 1958 I went to London as a kind of pilgrim to become first Popper's student and then for four I express my thanks to the following persons, who have been kind enosigh to rcad aod conitneist on all or part of this first instullrn ml, and who have sometimes protested my views: Joseph Agassi, t)onald T. Campbell, Marjorie Grene, Adolf Grbnhaum, Jagdish hiattianmadi. Michael Ilaynes, IC. Jarvie, Ass Kasiter, Stephen Ktesge, A.E. Musgrave; bun Post. Jeremy Shearmur, Avrum Stroll, Gerhard Wassermann, J.W.N, 'Watkins, and 3.0. Wisdom. I also acknow- ledge the help of grants (root the Research Foundation of the California State UnIversity, I layward. 463 L L ............... \V.W: LIAR FLEY, Ill int'eresting of living British philqsophers", there. is as yet "no body 1965 we'-years his colleague at the London School of Economics. In of informed and serious criticism of Popper's thought to draw had a row over my theory of rationality and his theory of' upon." It has been my intention in preparing this review •to demarcation; we have not spoken since. During these past ten years; contribute modestly to the creation of such a critical corpus. although I have tried in a way to avoid Popper's new work, I have- in connexion with a study of central Europemn thought between the first and second world wars -.- been investigating the origins of Popper's I bought and the Viennese milieu in which he came to Popper's discussion of biology and evolution theory dominates maturity. The initial results of my study suggested to me that the Schilpp volume as it did his most recent book: Ohjecf.i3c Popper was less original than I had at first imagined; and this Kno wiedge.' An Evolu tivnan' A pprnac/i (1972). Popper's interest in ''finding'' helped free inc from Ins influence. biology is of longstanding. I recall one day in the spring of 1959, as 1. accept e(l the assignment of reviewing the Schilpp volume in we were walking through Hyde Park together, when Popper ctis- the expectation that it would give inc an enjoyable opportunity to. cussed, in the most animated and delightful way, the issues between criticize Popper roundly. In the course of reviewing this volume, Darwin and Lamarck, and Samuel Butler's treatment of evolution in however. I have had to revise some notions that I have entertained in:. Erewhon. It was, so he told me then, a subject that had excited him recent yea-s. Although there will be plenty of criticism i,n• the pages since he was a young man. that follow, this review is on the whole favourable. Popper's public discussion of biology is, however, comparatively recent. I believe that I can date it quite exactly to the afternoon of II Tuesday, November I 5, 1960. On that day the members of Popper's The philosophical and scientific questions and ideas raised in the seminar had assembled as usual around the long table in the old Schilpp volu nc for K an Popper bear on virtually all aspects of seminar room on the fourth floor of the old building of the London philosophy. The work is long, published in two volumes, in a School of Economics. When Popper appeared, he announced that he compass of I 323 pages. There arc thirty-three contributions on would abandon the usual format and would read a new paper of his wide range of topics by distinguished philosophers, public servants, own, That new paper, which spoke of "three worlds", of biology, and scientists. These include four British knights, a British lord, andt, and gave qualified support to Ilegel's theory of objective mind, took two Nobel laureates. Popper's own contributions constitute a su' the members of the seminar off guard. The discussion that followed stantial work in themselves; an intellectual autohiogra phy of 18O was more bewildered than heated; and Popper, usually one of the pages, and a reply to his critics running to 236 pages. most persistent of men, did not pursue the matter that term. No One could not do justice to this work in the space of member of the seminar, perhaps not even Popper, could have review. I have therefore with the encouragement of the editorè óf.. predicted that they had just heard the first note in a new develop- this journal undertaken a survey of Popper's work based on this, ment in his thought. volume. It will be published in five installments as follows: Present that afternoon were some of the closest members of I. The present essay deals with biology, evolution theor Popper's circle, including J.W.N. Watkins, JO. Wisdom, lmre Laka- evolutionary epistemology, the "Three Worlds''. tos, l.C. Jarvie, and myself. About a dozen students, including Alan Il. The second essay treats consciousness and the mind-body Musgrave, also attended. Ernest Geilner was no longer attending the problem, and the relation of these to the problems of determinisqi seminars; Sir Ernst Gombnch did not attend that meeting, and Joseph Agassi had a few months earlier departed for hong Kong. and indcterminism, physics, and probability t heony, ':i Ill. The third essay discusses rationality, criticism, and togic.,. Al. Sabra was still in Egypt; and Paul Feyerabend had been in IV. The fount Ii insta llm cut reviews Popper's co ntrihut wns to,, Berkeley since 1958. Not one of these associates, neither those who historical and soial philosophy and to intellectual lnistor were present nor those who were absent, had more than marginal V. The fifth and final installment treats Popper's background interest in biology. None of them would - had be been asked to give and intellectual development, his intellectual biography, and the riSb i a sketch of Popper's ideas and of his development - have mentioned of the Popper School; and it gives a summary evaluation of PopperS biology. And Popper himself, in the autobiographical sketches that contributions to philosophy. ,t ,• he had written for British Philosophy in Mid-Century, for The Postscript (still tinpublished), and elsewhere, made virtually no Anthony Quinton, in an interesting study of Popper's work, mention of biologyór its philosophy. has co Iii men ted that alt hoti gh Popper is ''the in ost important and 465 464 . / Ii .--..-, '...'-,'." LsAi( I.L , Iii CIUrICAL ST(JJM1S . ', .'; ' • I V 1 ç' ', .c-.....c• '* i ,'i "çC '-.4 In the years since then Popper has developed his ideas on the1, Both scientific kno'ledge, as recorded In 'theoriai'and theyti4 "three' worlds't and on biology, drawing in large strokes, and has biologically based cognitive structures of anIrhals canbë 'studied' :i: therebygeneralised and unified his philosophy, Although the funda- otcjectivçly as products. Both are objective structutes the firt beinj.",', i" mental components of his framework have not been much affected 'in exosoniatic development the second being endosotnild develop. P by this development, their presentation has been transformed; they ments. Both, according to Popper, are produced bythe sam';". -:.;- are explained and in minor ways corrected. I'rior to 1960 the Dirwinrin mechanism the highest creati e thought, just like animal development of Popper's thought could have been presented, how- adaptation, is the product of blind variation and ever unjustly, in an incremental way: his new foundations for logic - trial and error. The same process governsbotI blologlcat 'en-.';,:'' and his work in indelerminism in physics, his contributions to ence and the growth of knowledge in sçIencécbrnIng tadItionl": probability theory, all could be presented as elaborations of his early philosophical approaches to knowledge which 'focus on the suh-" work in induction and deniarcat ion. The new work in philosophy of jective interiot experience of the cognizer or "knowing subject" --' .biology, however, is not simply incremental: it unifies the whole. his beliefs and perceptions - Popper turns to the tbjective products The manner in which I'opper's new biological concerns serve to of the cognitive process, viewing cognitive structures and scientific integrate his thought can he seen in the new formulation of the chief'c theories alike as knowledge achievements.3 -' I proble ;n of episteniology which he introduces In his "Replies to My Just as, for the earlier Popper, the phIlosopher compared I ('ri tics'' I/ic maui task of (lie tlieorp of knowledge,'' hew rites (p.