Criticism of Criticism

Karl Popper put forward the notion that any theory of everything is meaningless as it can't be falsified, because any event could be included in the theory. His argument was about what could be considered a true science, only conjecture that can be refuted is scientific. He was attempting to criticize subjects such as psychology, where according to the same principles someone could be good or a criminal, there was no example that would falsify the theory, he called it a pseudo science. I believe however that speculating on the nature of the whole, the completeness of existence, is essential for anyone, and everyone, to possessing a well rounded sense of understanding. Without this important understanding our judgements cannot reach outside the sensible and into the ethical and spiritual. If criticism is followed to it's logical end, then we are stuck in Descartes territory of only knowing the something exists.

What I wish to put forward here is the notion that criticism can easily attack the most perfect speculation. It's very hard to theorize on the nature of the whole, the principles of substance, and it is therefore easy to criticize, when there is no evidence that can falsify the theory there is also no evidence that can actually confirm the theory. If we look at it another way, sense data is very easy to acquire and very hard to criticize, very rarely does the mind trick as into seeing something not there. There have been philosophy groups that have advocated all we know is sense data, it's the only thing that resists criticism, but this is not the path I follow, I wish to speculate, it is important we stretch our judgement as far as it will go. Also, I would speculate, all theories about the whole, the absolute, are very similar. most see some sort of absolute power, some sort of infinite being outside of space and time. The road to the infinite seems to be similar for all, and this must be considered a strength of the argument, when we look at the ultimate creative force we are describing something similar.

My final point, comes from Popper's own writing, he said that a theory which appears to be easily falsifiable is stronger than a theory that seems harder to falsify. He is saying that the greater the conjecture, the more it goes against common knowledge, the more useful the theory. That's how I see the notion of duality, that the division between God and the Void, creating all forms of change and evolution. I hope that when I finally write the theory it will be original enough to feel useful. It is through greater and greater speculation that knowledge moves forward, all the great intellects have used original ideas to stretch our understanding and judgement. Often criticized in their own time, the theories have withstood the criticism and thus have grown in stature as the criticism leaves behind the true value. If we consider criticism as the paint remover that slowly allows the true value to become apparent then it is useful, if it is used to stem speculation then I refute it's meaning.