Karl Popper And the Evolution of Objectivist Epistemology

A Journey from Critical Realism to the Theory of World Three

Resumen

The text examines the complex relationship between science and metaphysics from the epistemological conception of Karl Popper. Within this framework, the question of the demarcation criterion is addressed, taking Popper's work as a key reference to understand such an issue. His proposal of falsifiability as a distinguishing criterion between science and metaphysics does not seek to exclude the latter, but to recognize its relevance in the process of knowledge construction. This paper analyzes the evolution of Popperian thought, differentiating its initial methodological stage from its later epistemological development, where he introduces the famous theory of “World 3”. This theory, influenced by Darwinism, proposes an evolutionary conception of knowledge. Popper distinguishes between World One, which is the physical world, World Two, represented by the sphere of mental states, and World Three, which refers to the realm of objective products of human thought, such as theories, institutions, and artworks. Even though the human mind generates World Three, it acquires a relative autonomy, exercising an unpredictable influence on humanity. From a biological-evolutionary perspective, Popper emphasizes this independence and its role in knowledge development. Among the objects of World Three are books, theories, and concepts, which can materialize in World One or exist subjectively in World Two, either as memories or thoughts. According to Popper, knowledge progresses by trial and error, in a process analogous to biological evolution. However, this autonomy of World Three raises questions about the control that human beings can exercise over their creations. Likewise, criticisms have been made of its epistemological conception's internal coherence and verifiability, which several authors consider closer to metaphysical than scientific discourse. Despite this, Popper's proposal retains a remarkable validity by offering a fruitful framework for reflecting on knowledge's dynamic and problematic development.