Changes

In contrast the concept of the "Open Society" reflects Popper's concept of science.  Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions.  Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action.  As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted.   

In contrast the concept of the "Open Society" reflects Popper's concept of science.  Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions.  Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action.  As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted.   

The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have.  They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together).  The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution.  All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences.  We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised.  Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.<ref>See, for example, A. O'Hear "The Open Society Revisted" in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004 </ref>

The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have.  They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together).  The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution.  All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences.  We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised.  Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.<ref>See, for example, A. O'Hear "The Open Society Revisted" in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004</ref>

Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis.  Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an "emotionally committed social democrat" and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right.  Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, "can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right"<ref>B. Magee "What Use is Popper to a Politician" in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.</ref>

Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis.  Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an "emotionally committed social democrat" and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right.  Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, "can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right"<ref>B. Magee "What Use is Popper to a Politician" in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.</ref>

==Critical rationalism==

==Critical rationalism==

See also: [[Critical rationalism]]

{{See also|Critical rationalism}}

In ''The Open Society and its Enemies'' Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers.  Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in "faith" (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable).  Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs.   

In ''The Open Society and its Enemies'' Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers.  Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in "faith" (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable).  Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs.