For me, the basis for science & democracy is Popper's doctrine of "critical rationalism". Twitter is not a place of reflection, yet reflection is important these days. So, forgive me for this thread on whether the elements of this doctrine is today under strain - or not. [1/9]

"Critical rationalism" is critical because it accepts that the belief in rationalism cannot itself be proven. It is rationalism because it contains a commitment to reason, i.e., "I may be wrong and you may be right, and, by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth" [2/9]

The commitment to reason entails the belief that I and, especially, you are rational. This includes, in part, that arguments are produced not as a means of self-expression but to convey information and that arguments are evaluated independently of the person. [3/9]

This commitment is based on, first, belief in the unity of humanity. For Popper, the alternative was Plato's and Marx's notion of "essences", ascribed on the basis of people's intellect or their class and dividing them into leaders and followers or workers and capitalists [4/9]

Second, the belief that the arbiter of truth is empirical observation as our common ground. Yet, according to Popper, impartiality is not a cause but an effect of open public scrutiny. It rests on a belief that description is always selective - but truth is never relative. [5/9]

Some current processes in science and society are truly Popperian: The firm beliefs in (1) equal treatment, (2) that descriptions are selective and, therefore, that diversity is of fundamental importance, and (3) public scrutiny, independently of traditional hierarchies. [6/9]

Other processes seem less Popperian. I may be wrong (I hope I am) but the necessary attention to identity seems in danger of leading to essentializing and, hence, making not just description but truth itself relative to identity. Thereby, unity and common ground is lost. [7/9]

Why might this be a problem? Poppers greatest insight was that the commitment to critical rationalism is a moral one. And the moral basis of this commitment is that the alternative will necessarily lead to violence. I will let Popper's own words speak. [8/9]

Please make your own reflections on Popper's arguments (you can, e.g., start with ch. 24-25: https://archive.org/stream/TheOpenSocietyAndItsEnemiesPopperKarlSir/The+Open+Society+and+Its+Enemies+-+Popper%2C+Karl+Sir_djvu.txt). But, to me, today's moral challenge is exactly the one Popper gave us: Address the selectivity of description and stand firm on the universality of truth. [9/9]