Karl Popper · Philosophy
Popper’s refutation of ‘historicism’ - the belief that history obeys discoverable laws that let us prophesy its future course. He argues that because the course of history depends on the growth of knowledge, and we cannot predict today what we will only learn tomorrow, the future of history cannot be scientifically foretold - and the prophets who claim otherwise leave a trail of ruin.
Popper dedicated The Poverty of Historicism to a chilling memory: the countless victims of ‘the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.’ The word he coined for that belief was historicism, and he gave it a precise meaning that must not be confused with mere interest in history. Historicism is the doctrine that history is governed by discoverable laws or overarching trends, and that the supreme task of the social sciences is to lay these bare so as to prophesy the future course of society - to reveal where humanity is inexorably headed. From Plato’s cycles to Hegel’s march of Spirit to Marx’s laws of capitalist collapse, the historicist claims a special insight into the plot of history, a knowledge of the destination toward which the human story is driving. It is this claim to prophetic knowledge, and the political ambitions built upon it, that Popper set out to destroy.
At the heart of the book is a compact, almost mathematical refutation. It runs in a few steps. First, the course of human history is strongly influenced by the growth of human knowledge - our discoveries, our science, our ideas continually reshape society, from the printing press to the atomic bomb. Second, we cannot predict, by rational or scientific methods, the future growth of our own scientific knowledge; this step, Popper thought, is decisive and can even be demonstrated. For if we could predict today the discoveries of tomorrow, we would already be making them today - to predict the content of a future discovery is simply to make it now. So future knowledge is genuinely unforeseeable. It follows that we cannot predict the future course of human history, because that course depends on a growth of knowledge that is, by its nature, unpredictable in advance. The dream of historical prophecy collapses on a point of pure logic.
Why does historical prophecy feel so compelling, if it is logically impossible? Popper diagnosed a fundamental confusion at its root: the historicist mistakes trends for laws. A trend is a pattern we observe over some stretch of history - populations rising, technology advancing, empires expanding. A law is a universal, conditional statement about what always follows from what. The two are utterly different. A trend is a singular fact about a particular period, and it persists only so long as the conditions that produce it persist; change those conditions, and the trend can slow, halt, or reverse. To read a trend as if it were an inexorable law of history - to say society must continue in the direction it happens to have been moving - is to commit a basic logical error, and to mistake the momentum of the recent past for the iron necessity of the future. Trends are real, and often worth studying, but they carry no guarantee, and no prophecy can be safely built on them.
This is the opening of the lesson. The rest — the dialogue, the primary source, and the recall — is in the app.
You learned that Popper defined ‘historicism’ as the doctrine that history has predictable laws or trends, and refuted it with a logical argument: the growth of knowledge shapes history, but future knowledge cannot be predicted now, so the future course of history cannot be predicted either. Explain the argument and w…
Leads to Karl Marx.
Begin this lesson →epoché — a humanities education that remembers you.