合理性의 構造와 開放社會의 論理 : 칼 포퍼의 철학을 중심으로 = Structure of Rationality and Logic of Open Society

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

An attempt is made in this paper, to define "rationality" in reference to Popper's notion of falsifiability and to analyze the concept of open society in terms of rationality thus defined.
The notion of falsifiability is proposed to be a term of a certain relation between a conclusion and its premises. For a hypothesis H, we may have a testing condition such that if a certain condition C is given then some effect, E, will be obtained. Suppose that C was given but E did not occur, then we are to say that H is falsified and refuted.
The notion of truthlikeness or verisimilitude emerges, out of that of falsifiability. Suppose that a is a sentence or a theory and A is the set of all the sentences deducible from a, and T is the set of all the true sentences. Then, the truth content of a call it At, is the intersection of A and T (A ∩ T), and the falsity content of a, call it Af, is A minus At(A-At). Now, we may talk about the content measure(ct) of those contents. Ct(At) is defined as 1 minus the probability of A ∩ T and ct (Af) as 1 minus the probability of A-At. Finally, the verisimilitude of a, call it vs (A), is defined as ct(At)-ct(Af). What this means is that the greater the probability of a's being false the greater the truth content of a and hence the verisimilitude of a is. The more falsifiable, the better.
Now, we may define what rationality is: dl is rational now if and only if vs(Dl) is greater than any vs (Dl plus I) examined and any plausible theory is now believed to be among those theories examined. Rationality is here understood to be primarily prepositional and relative. What is an open society? The rational one is the answer. Of course, the concept of falsifiability employed here is not truth-functional. But its logical structure remains the same. We may take any policy(law, decree, decision, etc.) to be a hypothesis H. Then, H can have an executive decree such that if some reasoned condition R is provided then certain social action event A will obtain.
Take for an example. The Korean government takes a policy that the population growth in Seoul is to be contained. One executive decree is that if the increase of number of college students in Seoul is restrained then the flow of many local high school graduates to Seoul will be minimized. Here we may be tempted to have a reading: the government restrained the increase of the number of college students in Seoul and the flow was minimized, therefore the policy was working well. This is not the falsifiability interpretation. Rather, we should look for undesirable social events due to the policy in question. There may be problems of quality education at local colleges and of their being over-crowded. and so an.
What is important is to see that though the statements of intended events and of undesired events are not of the form "p and not-p" which is contradictory, but of the form "A and not-A" which is not contradictory but practically incompatible, the statement of undesirable event, that is, not-A, tends to falsify the policy under consideration and to call for its improvements.
Then, it is plausible that open society is the one where any policy can be questioned and the policy is readily improved upon discovery that not-A. With such conceptual mapping on hand, issues such as civil disobedience and free press are seen succinctly explainable.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 1. 서론
• 2. 전통적 방법
• 3. 전통적 방법론의 문제
• 4. 추측
• 5. 반박
• 6. 지식의 논리로서의 반박
• 7. 합리성의 구조
• 8. 개방사회의 논리
• 9. 언론의 자유와 대통령의 애국심
• 10. 저항권과 헌법의 일관성
• 11. 두 가지 문제
• 참고문헌
• 영문요약