Critical Rationalism

Critical Rationalism

            Critical rationalism is the best argument that is advanced by rationalists in the raging debate between rationalism and empiricism. Rationalists use reason as the source of their knowledge (Markie, 2017). The critical rationalism argument was first advanced by Karl Popper in the mid-20^th century. The theory, as developed by Popper, was to help counter the evident shortcomings in social science experiments. The former method of carrying out research using questions, hypothesis, and experimentation using empirical or observation means resulted in conclusions that were more theorized than factual. Popper proposed the use of criticism to aid correct research. He challenged the empiricism theory in that it only involved mere observations in making conclusions (Rowbottom, 2011). According to Popper, there was a need for reasoning and logic in the observation. Such an approach would result in more factual conclusions. His argument gave rise to critical rationality theory in which all responses ought to be investigated for their failure.

Critical rationalism argument involves the formulation of a theory as a result of an empirical study. The theory is then tested to dispute the initial claim. Complete disapproval of the theory renders it untrue, while its partial objection means that the claim requires some fine-tuning (Rowbottom, 2011). In the critical rationalism argument, rationalists persuade us not to accept theories on the simple basis of observation. Theories should be subjected to logical reasoning. The logical rationale should encompass the criticism by oneself. This helps to select the best and valid opinion. Theories that endure criticism provide the best action path. Rationalists think that we should buy into their thought process as it involves a critical introspection of issues before arriving at a particular conclusion or action.

In a critical rationalism argument, all inductive, justificatory, and subjective claims are disqualified. The argument utilizes deductive reasoning in which a logical sequence is used to move from a generalization in theory to the specifics (Rowbottom, 2011). Inductive arguments in critical rationalism are disapproved, as they are found to be flawed (Ormerod, 2013). No in-depth thought process is used to arrive at the conclusions. The use of deductive reasoning in critical rationalism makes the arguments to have reliable conclusions that meet merit.

Critical rationalism arguments have found their utilization in different areas such as in operational research, planning, politics, and general topics in the society. Ormerod (2013), in a study on critical rationalism in operational research, provides excellent examples of the utilization of critical rationalism arguments. He gives a simple case of the usage of critical rationalism in life by citing the use of the umbrella during rains. The act of putting the umbrella up is premised on the theory that such action helps one to avoid getting wet from the showers (Ormerod, 2013). A critical application of rationalism, however, concludes that this is, however, not entirely true in all scenarios. The presence of windy conditions makes the lower part of the body to be wetted. The use of a raincoat can help avoid the hands getting wet. However, one can also get wet from splashes from vehicles as they pass by. In a straightforward example, Ormerod exemplifies that conclusions based on some theories are not entirely valid, one has to use projection and thorough investigation of options to arrive at a useful conclusion. The detailed examination of options, prediction, and theorizing involves the use of critical rationalism.

Ormerod provides another example depicting the use of critical rationalism. He uses the complex procedures involved in bridge design to exhibit the utilization of critical rationalism (Ormerod, 2013). He notes the utilization of critical rationalism arguments in the different engineering processes, such as design, construction, and maintenance. The different proposals based on various theories are subjected to an in-depth analysis (Ormerod, 2013). The investigation is premised on the functionality that the bridge should meet. Proposals that do not meet the set criteria are eliminated, such as the bridge failing under particular utilization when a specific material is used for construction. The best proposal after the analysis is adopted. The bridge example depicts the use of logic and rationality in a real engineering application.

An empiricist may attack the critical rationalism argument by citing that the argument fails to recognize the crucial use of sense in the form of observation in advancing the argument. It would be hard for rationalists to successfully defend this argument from such an attack because, as evident from the two examples provided, the knowledge gained from observation or experience helps to make the final decision or action plan. Observation may not be the basis of concluding, but in a very impactful way, it influences the decision made. In the first example, observation of the different conditions during rains would influence the prediction of patterns and thus the decision made. In the bridge example, years of experience through observation have given rise to the different codes used in the design and construction (Ormerod, 2013). Thus, the critical rationalism argument is guilty of the observation and experience charge as advanced by empiricists.

Critical rationalism argument is quite useful in different applications in everyday life. Its use of logical and deductive reasoning helps to arrive at informed decisions. By avoiding the use of induction and justification, the argument makes informed and correct conclusions from the initial general theories or claims. However, as advanced by empiricists, the argument benefits from observation and experience, which are some of the crucial components in empiricism. Thus, it would be right to conclude that the two main ways in philosophical thinking would benefit from each other if they incorporate the elements of the other model.