Thoughts on Popper's Theory of All Life as Problem Solving
When I first heard of Karl Popper's
book All Life as Problem Solving,
I though that he would show how all the experiences humanity faces
during life can be boiled down to instances of problem solving, but
as I have become more intimate with his thought (though, I have yet
to read the above book), I have actually discovered that Popper boils
down all
biological life, and the evolution of it down to problem solving.
While I have yet to decide whether this is a completely correct view,
the lessons learned from coming in contact with it are very much
worthwhile.
Popper
in Objective
Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach
introduces a theory by which man is always testing conjectural
knowledge upon which he understands the world through the problems he
faces in his experiences. This process can be represented through the
following schema, which in Popper's words is: “...a
general schema of problem-solving by the method of imaginative
conjectures and criticism
(italics his )”:
P1→TT→EE→P2
In the above, P1 is the problem with which we start, and, trying to
solve it, we proceed to TT, a tentative hypothesis, the first
conjectural solution to the problem, and hence tentative
interpretation. The next stage, EE, error elimination, consists in
the “severe critical examination” of the conjectural solution ,
and our tentative interpretation consisting not only in a critical
utilization of documentary evidence, but also critical discussion,
and, if there are competing theories, comparison to competing
interpretations. P2 will be the problem situation as it emerges from
our first attempt to solve it, and this will then lead to further
attempts to comprehend the problem further. A truly satisfactory
understanding of a problem will be able to illuminate details of it
that had not been noticed prior, or the fact that it explains many
sub-problems that were not seen to begin with.
Not only does Popper relate this framework to the manner by which
man tackles intellectual problems like physics, but he also employs
it with respect to biological evolution. Even insentient organisms
face problems, such as the problem of reproduction, and those
problems are solved by the organisms through a process of tentative
interpretations that are subjected to error elimination via
extinction that results in a set of organisms most adapted towards
the surrounding environment. It is necessary to remember that all
problems that will face an organism need not be survival problems,
and that new when a new problem situation emerges the organism may
very well had changed its ecological niche during the process of
solving the prior problem. In addition, the organism solves its
problems by adapting to its environment via growing new organs, and
somatic modifications, and that when an organism fails to solve its
problem, it dies off. Overall, Popper describes all of evolution as
problem solving in that organisms through the process of evolution
attempt to somatically solve problems they are faced with.
The process of evolution via mutations is then conquered, so says
Popper, by man's ability to think rationally about the world in terms
of conjectural hypotheses, and the fact that when tentative solutions
fail it is not man that dies with it, but the idea. Man, is faced
with problems, many of which are ecological, just like the lower
animals, but, unlike the animals, man does not grow new organs, and
modify those he already has to persevere, rather he creates ideas,
and grows exosomatic tools. Problem solving is also not, as many like
to see it, a phenomenon we are not always completely conscious of for
it is only in hindsight that we are able to truly able to speak of
the problem.
The vast improvement that man's problem solving has over a lower
organism's is that man has separated the adequacy of his tentative
conjectures with that of his survival When a hypothesis fails, man
need not die, instead he can let his ideas die in his stead; thus the
problem solving process of evolution of lower organisms is still
effecting man, but he has created a solution to the problem of
survival that enables him to outlive his conjectures.
While Popper's theory seems to be very much correct in describing
the realm of a posteriori knowledge, when it comes to the realm of
the a priori, though, the entire theory is inadequate for it suggests
that there is a never-ending process of problem solving, P1→PN,
and that human knowledge can never be truly valid as the a priori
category. Popper himself rejects the idea that there is an a priori
category of knowledge that can elucidate anything other than
tautologies, in his framework there are then two types of knowledge:
there are empirical statements about the world that are always
hypothetical and accordingly never apodictically true, and there are
analytic propositions that are tautological, hence true by
definition.
Ergo, it would follow that the existence of any non-hypothetical
branch of knowledge would break-down Popper's theory of problem
solving; however, I will advocate that it does not necessarily
break-down, I will admit that I am not even sure of the validity of
my claim as of now. Even in the a priori branch of knowledge, we have
problems that must be solved, the part of Popper's theory that seems
to not apply is the conjectural portions that imply human knowledge
can never be non-hypothetical:
P1→TT→EE→P2
However, even in the realm of the
a priori there can be logical faults that are not at first realized,
and that must be hunted down in order to create a truly valid claim.
It is the process of hunting down these logical flaws, and the
logically flawed theory that can respectfully be called error
elimination, and the tentative hypothesis. However, in the a priori
interpretation, though, the first problem does not lead to an
innumerable amount of further problems as man's comprehension of the
problem is fine tuned, rather the process will end once all logical
errors are eliminated. While Popper's theory does not take into
consideration a priori knowledge due to his rejection of
non-tautological a priori judgments, it can be reinterpreted in view
of the elimination of logical fallacies from an a priori judgment in
order to accommodate them.
In the end, Popper gives a theory of how not only all human life,
but all biological life can be explain by the process of
problem-solving by means of conjectures, and severe appraisal of
their adequacy. For lower organisms, this entails solving the problem
through growing, or adapting somatic organs, yet for man this means
the creation of exosomatic theories, and tools. While the very lives
of the former are tied to their conjectures, the latter can abandon
obsolete theories, and tools without sacrificing his life. Even
though this theory does not admit the validity of a priori judgments
in its original understanding, or if it even does not allow a priori
judgments whatsoever, it remains a very much interesting gem of
though that can give some light on the question of: “Is evolution
still in effect for mankind?”