Kuhn vs Popper - About James H. Collier

it were, between organized sciences that do notcover the universality of existence.Theodor Adorno, ‘The stars down to earth’Popper and Adorno shared the critic’s tendency topresuppose that the audience already knows thetarget of criticism in some detail, so that one’s owndiscourse becomes a series of reflections on thehidden opponent. This feature made it frustratingfor listeners who sought constructive advice on theconduct of social research. But more importantly,the two antagonists expressed their critiques inradically different forms. Popper provided a list oftheses, with which he wanted Adorno to agree ordisagree. In response, Adorno, seeing very littlewith which to disagree, decided instead to dwell onthe care with which one needs to formulateepistemological claims in the human sciences sothat they are not captured by an unreflective andpotentially oppressive positivism. In other words,Adorno criticised Popper for not being sufficiently‘reflexive’ in considering how his words might beused to legitimise projects to which he (andAdorno) would be opposed.Admittedly, Popper was more sanguine thanAdorno about the precedent set by the success ofthe physical sciences. At the same time, Popperoperated with a rather sophisticated and somewhat154