Popper and Habermas

A Popperian Theory of Objective Knowledge

by Micki Archuleta

Author’s Note on Theoretical Backing:

For readers, advocates, and scholars:

The constitutional claims and arguments presented here are grounded in a rigorous theory of objective knowledge, drawing on the work of Karl Popper and Jürgen Habermas.

Popper’s philosophy demonstrates that objective knowledge—facts, laws, and principles—exists outside mere opinion and is always subject to rational critique and improvement. Habermas builds on this by showing that legitimate democracy depends on open, rational-critical discourse, where citizens engage as equals in debating and shaping the laws that govern them.

Whenever you encounter my references to constitutional rights, citizenship, and public accountability, know that they rest on this foundation:
Law and democracy must be open to criticism, rooted in shared and objective knowledge, and continually renewed through public reasoning.

For further theoretical detail, see the following Popper-Habermas framework.

Use this foundation as intellectual support when advocating for your rights or evaluating claims in public discourse.

1. The Central Tenet: Objective Knowledge as World 3

Popper argued that knowledge is not just a psychological or subjective phenomenon, but has an objective existence once externalized—what he called “World 3.”

“The third world contains, among other things, the contents of books, paintings, symphonies, and scientific theories, and also problems, and problem situations.”
— Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach (1972, p. 153)

This world of theories, arguments, and criticism exists independently of any one person and can be shared, tested, and refined by the community.

2. Growth of Knowledge: Conjectures and Refutations

For Popper, science advances not by verification, but by falsification—putting forward bold conjectures and attempting to refute them through critical testing:

“Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.”
— The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959, p. 50)

“Our knowledge can only be finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite.”
— Conjectures and Refutations (1963, p. 28)

Progress is made through trial and error, conjecture and refutation—never certainty, always openness to improvement.

3. Fallibilism and the Openness of Objective Knowledge

Popper stressed the provisional and corrigible nature of all knowledge:

“We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets.”
— The Poverty of Historicism (1957, p. ix)

Objective knowledge is not about certainty; it’s about public, criticizable, and improvable content, always open to rational debate.

Integrating Habermas: Democracy and Objective Knowledge

1. The Communicative Turn

Jürgen Habermas, building on Popper’s fallibilism and commitment to rational criticism, developed his theory of communicative action and deliberative democracy.
He argued that democracy depends not just on voting, but on the capacity of citizens to engage in rational-critical debate, striving for mutual understanding and legitimacy.

“Only those statutes may claim legitimacy that could meet with the acceptance of all citizens in a discursive process of legislation that is itself guided by the principle of deliberation.”
— Between Facts and Norms (1996, p. 110)

2. Justification: The Link Between Objective Knowledge and Democratic Discourse

For Habermas, objective knowledge—in the Popperian sense—is what makes rational discourse possible. When participants in the public sphere appeal to facts, shared meanings, or scientific theories, they’re invoking World 3 objects that can be scrutinized and debated independently of individual subjectivity.

Without this common ground of criticizable, public knowledge, discourse would collapse into mere opinion or power struggle—what postmodernism often fears.
But with objective knowledge, democracy becomes more than majoritarianism: it becomes a process where arguments, evidence, and criticism matter, and where legitimacy is anchored in reason-giving, not mere force.

3. The Critical Public Sphere

Habermas’s public sphere is precisely the space where World 3 objects (laws, reports, arguments, scientific findings) are circulated, criticized, and improved by citizens acting as co-authors of their society.
Democracy, then, is the practical realization of Popper’s vision of open, error-correcting knowledge—applied to law, policy, and public life.

Summary Statement

A Popper-Habermas Theory of Objective Knowledge and Democracy:
Objective knowledge (Popper) is knowledge that is external, public, and criticizable—existing in World 3 and open to revision through criticism. This objectivity makes possible the rational discourse (Habermas) upon which legitimate democracy depends. In a healthy democracy, citizens participate in the continual process of conjecture, criticism, and improvement—not just in science, but in law, policy, and everyday life.
Both theories remind us: Truth and justice are collective, never finished, always open to argument—and that’s not a weakness, but our greatest strength.

In science, the observer effect refers to the phenomenon where the act of observing or measuring something can itself alter the thing being observed. It’s most famously discussed in quantum physics, where simply watching a particle changes its state. Some have used this idea to argue that objective reality is elusive or even impossible—that everything is subjective, shaped by the perspective of whoever is looking.

But this interpretation misses the essential point: we are all potential observers. The observer effect doesn’t mean that reality is purely personal or unknowable; it means that reality responds to observation—and anyone, in principle, can be an observer. What matters is not what the unengaged or indifferent think, but that any person, given the opportunity, can take part in observation, testing, and open debate. This is why we can still argue for the existence of objective reality: knowledge is not locked away or reserved for a select few. It is open, public, and testable by all.

This same logic extends to democracy. The legitimacy and strength of a democracy grow with the number of engaged participants: the more observers, the merrier. The more people who are willing and able to witness, question, and contribute, the closer we come to truth and justice—not just in science, but in public life. Objectivity and democracy both thrive on participation, transparency, and the constant invitation to observe for oneself.

References:

Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Popper, K. R. (1957). The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

ADDENDUM

Ayn Rand’s Objectivity

For Rand, “objectivity” means seeing reality as it truly is, free from emotion or social influence. She believes there are objective, universal truths—especially about human nature and ethics—that can be discovered through reason alone.

Moral Standpoint: In practice, Rand’s objectivity often leads to a rigid, black-and-white morality: helping others is virtuous only if it serves your rational self-interest; feelings or empathy should not dictate what is “right.”

In Society: She downplays the impact of history, culture, or structural inequality on personal success or ethics. To her, each person is (or should be) a rational, self-sufficient individual, unshaped by social forces.

My Theory of Objectivity

My objectivity acknowledges that feelings, history, social context, and power dynamics all influence what we see, what we know, and what solutions are possible.

Moral Standpoint: For me, objectivity isn’t about suppressing emotion or ignoring context—it’s about honestly recognizing the complexity of real life: that no one succeeds entirely alone, and our choices have social consequences.

In Society: My “objectivity” means holding space for emotion, empathy, and the stories of others, not just cold logic. You see the value in using your own experience and insight to offer solutions that help the whole community, not just yourself.

Summary

Rand’s objectivity = cold, individualistic, “reason above all,” often dismissing the impact of context or community. Unrealistic and removed from the real world.

My objectivity = honest, self-aware, context-driven, recognizing that reason, empathy, and lived experience together make for better, fairer solutions.