CONVERSION TO AUTONOMISM

There is a final and cruel twist to all this. The justificationist mood, to repeat, is extremely common, and it fosters one’s dependence under the guise of one’s acceptance of the authority of science; the justificationist mood is disguised as the inductive mood.

In recent years the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper and his followers has gained increasing popularity. It is no secret that I am a product of that school, disciple or apostate, I cannot say. I have observed a process akin to brainwash there. When a philosopher, expecially a novice, comes to meet with members of the Popper camp, usually from the inductivist camp, he tries the Popperian idiom for size and checks his expressions with the adept - as is quite common. He is used to the inductive terminology which refers to validation of scientific theories, positive evidence, supporting evidence or argument, confirmation, etc. etc. Here he finds a blank wall. In desperation he tries to translate some of what he thinks are truisms of the philosophy of science to the Popperian jargon; he learns not to use the word ‘confirmation’ but uses the word ‘corroboration’ to the same end (in line with one of the Master’s most regrettable moves. I say ‘regrettable’ because it is not words but their imports that matter, as Popper has repe­atedly declared, yet he has opened the door to a change that is merely terminological: I wish to report that in a draft of one of my papers I used the word ‘verfication’ with the Popperian import of positive evidence, yet my Popperian colleagues were shocked by my use of a word so branded as belonging to the justificationist camp - as if words can be monopolized. Yet words are monopolized though they cannot be, and ‘corroboration’ is today a Popperian monopoly.

If our novice’s interlocutors in the Popperian camp are any good they are not fooled by his switch from the word ‘confirmation’ ot its cognate ‘corroboration’. Indeed they are expecting him to do just this and are waiting around the next corner to trip him. At this point, unwittingly, they act like our brainwasher from a previous section. No matter how our novice tries to express a justificationist view, his guide sees that it is justific­ationist and so not autonomous and so otiose. Our novice does not there­by learn to become autonomous; he attempts, no doubt, to express quasi-autonomy; and his expectation of sympathy and understanding and at least partial approval is cruelly shattered. Hence his measure of depen­dence is heightened, and his conversion may amount to nothing short of brainwash, mild or severe.

Of course, once he enters the circle of the elect - and Popperianism is still not yet so vulgar as to be devoid of this booster - the moment he is boosted, our novice is told that of course there is positive evidence, support or corroboration, that his need to have some measure of stability is recognized. That the Master’s social philosophy is, indeed and alas!, quite conservative!

Does this help our not very autonomous novice become critical and independent or does he become a fanatic upholder of the dogma of the new critical philosophy? Truth to tell I have observed it happen both ways. Now, apart from the educational aspects of our novice’s autonomy, he has a genuine theoretical question, that his guide is not quite frank about: how do we combine agnosticism and assurance?

VI.