This article examines Popper’s reasons for emphasizing the importance of conjecture in theory formation and how his definition of observation influenced his argument. It analyzes Popper’s distinction between observational inference and direct observation, and examines the implications of theory development through the interplay of the role of observation and speculation.
According to Popper, the development of a theory is an end in itself. The closer we get to the truth as we develop theories, the more we understand the world, which in turn helps us in the process of living in it. In Conjecture and Refutation, Popper highlights conjecture and observation as methods involved in the process of theory formation. In Chapter 5, “Return to the Pre-Socratics,” Popper argues that speculation is more important than observation. Let’s take a look at why Popper makes this claim and where he goes wrong.
Before we proceed, we need to clarify what we mean by observational inference and observation. Observation is the visual experience of an object, regardless of its extent. Observational analogies are analogies between something that is difficult to observe in its entirety and some similar phenomenon that is not the entirety of the object. For example, a large-scale object like the Earth is analogized to the phenomenon of something floating in water. Clearly, observational analogies involve observation. Popper’s use of observational analogies as observations in his book is arbitrary, and as a result, he uses the word observation loosely.
Popper uses examples of various theories from the past to make his point. The theories of Thales and Anaximandros about the shape and position of the earth and the theories of Thales, Anaximandros, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Parmenides about change seem to support Popper’s claim that theory development is based on speculation. But let’s analyze Popper’s examples. Theories about the shape and position of the earth are aimed at the large scale of the universe. Theories of change are based on the search for the origin of all things, which is very abstract. In other words, they are all based on something that scholars cannot observe in its entirety. Popper argues that technological limitations have led scholars to formulate theories through observational analogies rather than observing the whole, and that this method has hindered accurate theory formation. These examples certainly seem to favor speculation over observational inference. But what about direct observation as opposed to observational inference?
A prime example of the active use of direct observation in theory formation is the discovery of the cell. Cells were first discovered by Robert Hooke in 1665, when he first observed cork or charcoal under a microscope as small box-like aggregates and named them “cells”. Of course, Hook later realized that what he had discovered was a cell wall. But the important point is that Hooke had a technological tool available to him, the microscope, and he used it to create a theoretical framework for the cell.
Fleming’s discovery of lysozyme and penicillin also illustrates the importance of direct observation. Lysozyme was discovered by chance when Fleming observed wounded soldiers dying of sepsis caused by bacteria. Fleming also observed that blue mold formed on bacteria and killed them, and he used the blue mold to create penicillin.
These are three examples of how direct observation played a crucial role in the development of a theory. Of course, the process of theory formation after observation involves speculating on theories based on observations. However, the discovery of the box shape and the blue mold through direct observation played a crucial role in theory formation. You can’t argue that observation is less important than speculation in the process of theory formation. But why does Popper call observations unimportant? Because he calls observational inferences observations. As a result, it cannot be argued that observations are not more important than speculations in the process of theory formation. But Popper says that observations are not more important than speculations.
By observation, Popper means observational inferences, not observations as we usually know them. Observational inferences have the limitation of observing something other than the object in the first place. In the end, the misconception that Popper underestimated observation is due to his arbitrary use of words.
As such, a review of Popper’s arguments can expand our understanding of the process of theory formation. Popper’s arguments highlight an important aspect of theory development, which helps us gain a deeper understanding of the world. By analyzing the interplay between theory and observation, we can build a better scientific methodology. This is more than just academic; it can also be a useful tool in real life. For example, it helps us learn how to try different approaches when solving complex problems and strengthen our reasoning with the data we get along the way. It’s a process of constant learning and exploration that builds a more robust body of knowledge.
