The Poverty of Historicism

1. Historicism is a term that was invented by Karl Popper. He did it on purpose to prevent confusion with any other existing term.2. The book is about methodology of social science but of course most of the conclusions are about the nature of social science.3. He seeks to refute the two core arguments that are advanced to show that social science is not like science.4. The anti naturalist doctrine says social science is not like science because unlike in science we cannot really follow the hypothesis>experiment>conclusion> refinement of hypothesis cycle. Various reasons are offered for this such as being unable to experiment, complexity of social science (includes biology, psychology etc.), novelty (every situation is unique because of the `uncertainty principle') and the fact that social experiments is not worth doing in a piecemeal fashion because their generalisability is very less.5. The naturalist doctrine on the other hand looks at social science as being similar to astronomy (global laws which explain everything about the universe and cannot be disobeyed or overturned no matter what we do) and says that laws of social science can be found. These laws are not accurate in the short term but work very well in the long term across periods of history and in fact are necessary to be able to make out the transition between different periods of stages of history as the deeper content of each of these stages cannot be known with accuracy. Also these laws can be solely understood by studying the history that is records of past events. These laws are called Holism by Popper and he shows that even in the anti naturalist doctrine holism is popular because it is used as a constant between the various stages of history (which in the short term cannot be analysed and predicted).6. The holism is central to historicism and leads to a position where in the short term we cannot do anything about social sciences in the manner of being able to rationally change and predict the consequences but in the long term we have to ensure that we are in tune with the tide of history as revealed by laws such which have roots in Plato's republic and the Marx's march of the proletariat etc. The only proactive thing we can do is to hasten the transition of various stages or change our values and beliefs to be in tune(Marx ...reduce the birthing pangs in contrast to his call to action of changing history rather than interpret it).7. So what will work according to Popper : a. In terms of experiments he suggests piecemeal engineering that is based on the scientific method. He says that scientific experiments may look on the surface easier to setup and control as compared to social experiments but this is because we are usually comparing a limited scope experiment to one on a large scale. If the scientific experiment was on the large scale as is expected in a social context it would be just as difficult. b. Also large scale social experiments such as centralised planning are actually not helpful in understating cause and effect because it is very hard to learn from very large failures .Specifically with respect to planning they cannot centralise knowledge and control all kinds of relationships. To get around this they use propaganda and fear which defeats the purpose of seeing whether planning works to better the society as it stood before the start of the "experiment". c. In a large scale social change recognise that often one can only offer interpretations based on various point of views(e.g. capitalist) and the starting conditions ( equivalent to initial conditions) as opposed try to come up with a set of unchanging laws that this large scale event seems to justify (e.g. Russian Revolution. d. He rejects the holism argument and march of history as he says that there are no laws of social science that can be gleaned by studying many separate events. There is just a trend and a trend has to be explained by multiple laws. The mistake of historicism is to see trends as laws. e. So even if these multiple laws were there they would not be that relevant because other than in fields such as theoretical physics ( law of gravity) the laws themselves act as background to solving a practical problem rather than being the cause of the practical problem (e.g. prediction of earthquakes in a place is not going to be found out by applying the law of gravity although any hypothesis must be consistent with gravity). f. So to solve these practical problems we can take the piecemeal engineering approach by formulating the hypothesis as negative statements ( e.g. progress in science cannot occur in a totalitarian regime). These can then be tested using the experimental approach. g. We should take a technological view of social science ( build a building to guard against a storm) as opposed to a theoretical view ( explain the occurrence of storms in a location over 30 years). h. The poverty of historicist is a poverty of imagination as it says that there cannot be a scientific approach to social science but at the same time there are absolute and unchanging laws - called essentialism on the lines of Plato's Republic (that only a few people understand ) which TODAY (this generation, this period in history where the historicist is) are operating far quicker than ever before because of the "pace of progress".

Although the original paper that this book was based on was written over eighty years ago, The Poverty of Historicism contains many important ideas that are still relevant today. One of those ideas is beware of those, such as the Greens, who propose to completely re-model society. No matter how well intentioned they may sound, it is not possible for humans to acquire all the knowledge needed to ensure that a radical overhaul of society will produce the intended outcomes. The Communists, Nazis and Fascists all believed in social revolution. They all ended up with the deaths of millions. Better to stick with small piecemeal changes that can be reversed if found not to work.Solid going and definitely not a gentle bedtime read, but well worth the effort.

Karl Popper in The Poverty of Historicism, provides a fruitful analysis into a group of traditions he calls "historicism." Simply put, these are individuals who provide society at large a specific means of understanding our society and our role in history through a particular social law.Based on my personal exploration of these particular world-views, his characterization are accurate (albeit simplified). Critics of his characterization should read his other (longer) books to gain understanding of why and how Popper reaches his conclusions. Merely attacking the conclusions a flawed method for academic discourse.His critique is a worthwhile and necessary read for Marxists, Fascists, and others who view the world as social processes leading to a particular end (so called "progress"). While it is quite possible his viewpoint could be inaccurate (as other reviewers have alleged), it does not mean that he is wrong per se. People who fit within one of his two camps of historicism should review their professed worldview and answer his questions.

Apart from its historic importance as a classic work, this book is very relevant to today's world, which is no less full of irrational ideologues both claiming to save democracy and seeking to destroy it than Popper's post-World War II world.

One of the most important debates of the XX Century and an indispensable guide for the XXI

Great book for a deeper understanding of the historicist mindset along with their strengths and weaknesses. Recommended for those with background in philosophy and social sciences.

Boring as Hades, but most reading in this modern world. Has influenced my thinking tremendously.

Popper goes beyond physics and philosophy, beyond critical reasoning into the essence of thought. You'll love it if you love Popper.

Like new! Thanks

Very interesting read. Highly recommended. Especially since "The Open Society" is so large; this book gives a brief statement of one of the central theoretical elements of "The Open Society".

Bought it for a friend. Can't review about the content but nice presentation. High quality paper, smooth and thick.

." History has no meaning, I contend... It is up to us to decide what shall be our purpose in life, to determine our ends."" This dualism of facts and decision is, I believe, fundamental. Facts as such have no meaning ; they can gain it only through our decisions."In this book, Popper severely criticizes what is called " Historicism " ( just the same as he did in "The Open Society and Its Enemies" ).ex) Historicism is the doctrine that history is controlled by specific historical or evolutionary laws whose discovery would enable us to prophecy the destiny of man .I think this is the basic and most important attitude for us to keep in mind in studying human history.Very interesting and suggestive book to read, recommended for all students who want to study social science .

Popper is one of those writers whose work is more praised than read and this book is a good example.Within a few pages it took me back to my student days and reminded me why I avoided the hard slog of philosophy courses and stuck to the simplicity of my main subject - Physics.