Is an action part of knowledge?

A critical comment concerning the Critical

Rationalism
S E Shahrestani

Abstract: Some disciples of critical rationalism (CR) are trying to show that not only CR is
compatible with Islamic teachings, it can be used as a cognitional tool in furthering Islamic
understanding too. Although this is true to some extent, but in this paper, it is argued that
CR is not sufficient and some modifications to it is needed. As an example, we discuss the
interconnectivity of action and knowledge in Islam. The paper uses the differences between
our right and left-brain functionalities and introduces the effect of faith in knowledge. It is
shown that by introduction of emotions in cognitive system, action and knowledge become
interchangeable.

 
1. Methodology used
Epistemology is a complicated subject by itself. Enter psychology and confusion becomes even more.
And since we want to do just that, it is vital that we enter the subject in a step by step stages. We are
talking about human beings and as such, humans have two tenets of reason and emotions. Deleting
any one of these, would render something different from what we are, and hence it would not be
scientifically correct.
In this paper, we follow the methodology of critical rationalism (CR). Therefore, we accept the
existence of the real world, the three worlds of Popper and the interactions between them. However, it
is argued that our action is not a mere product in W3, it is part of feedback process – a representation
of W2 - which we need it to critically evaluate whatever conjecture created in our mind. Although,
there are quite similarities in the criteria used by CR and Islamic literature, nevertheless, there are
quite important elements missing in CR that need to be addressed. We will discuss these similarities
and differences in all sub-section of this paper and in conclusion give few modifications needed for
CR in order to operate in religions as a whole and in Islam in particular.
The paper starts with the uppermost cognitive level in our mind, i.e. worldviews, and then discusses
four more issues before entering the main subject of the action. The first step is to recognise that any
cognitive action starts with a vision or worldview. Apart from the importance of vision in our
cognitive thinking, we will argue that Islam has its own vision and one cannot enter Islamic fields
without respecting those views. In the next step, we study the split brain. It is a fact that our brain is
divided in two parts. The functionality of each side is different. One is for reason and the other is the
house of emotions. The role of emotions in evaluation of new conjectures is emphasised. Cognitive
processes in general are often seen as working in two modes, a deliberate, conscious one and an
automatic nonconscious type of processing (e.g., Evans, 2008; Kahneman, 2011). Then, it comes the
role of faith in our cognitive judgement to be discussed. What is faith and how it affects our thoughts?
After all these steps, we enter the main subject of induction. Popper has discussed this thoroughly
because knowledge is not obtained without induction. Fortunately, a contemporary Muslim
philosopher and jurist, Ayatullah SMB Sadr has written a book on this subject and has emphasised the
role of psychology in induction. The problem of induction and its relevance to this paper will be
deliberated. Of course, the all-important issue of certainty is not forgotten. The last step is allocated
for the role of free will. A new definition for free will is given and role of the action is considered.
After discussing all the above, we can enter the main subject of the action and ask if it is part of
knowledge or something totally different from it.

2. The new era

Emotions have affected the scientific world at large by the end of 19 th century. “After the collapse of
the Austrian Empire there had been a revolution in Austria: the air was full of revolutionary slogans
and ideas, and new and often wild theories.” Popper1 thus describes the era of his youth. As a young
philosopher, his aim was to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that
science often errs, and that pseudo-science may happen to stumble on the truth. Because deep in his
heart he knew that historically speaking almost all scientific theories originated from myths, and that a
myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Like any young philosopher, his head
was full of questions. When should a theory be ranked as scientific? Is there a criterion for the
scientific character or status of a theory?
Popper as the father of critical rationalism (CR) reminds us that until a theory has been refuted, we
can never know in what way it may have to be modified. Moreover, he notes that critical attitude may
be described as the conscious attempt to make our theories, our conjectures, suffer in our stead in the
struggle for the survival of the fittest. As if he had read the following verse from the Quran:

)18-39:17( َ ‫ش ْر ِع َبا ِد ۝ الَّذِينَ َي ْس َت ِم ُعونَ ا ْل َق ْول َ َف َي َّتبِ ُعونَ أَ ْح‬

‫س َن ُه‬ ِّ ‫َف َب‬
Successful are those who listen to all conjectures and follow the best one 2
Popper summed up his ideas by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its
falsifiability, refutability, or testability. And he goes on to give his criteria for critical rationalism
(CR). However, when some of his followers tried to use CR in Islamic domain, the mis-match
between the two were felt. The aim of this paper is to follow the footsteps of Popper and show some
of the problems raised in doing so, and discuss the relationship between the action and knowledge as a
case to prove.

3. A need for a vision (worldview)

One of principles of CR is the need for a worldview. Paya says: “all observations are ‘theory-
laden.’ It is in the light of our prior theories/conjectures/expectations that we
‘see’ things.”3 Popper addresses this subject by giving an example. He says: “if I ask someone
‘Observe!’, he would ask me of course: “What should I observe?”. Clearly the instruction, 'Observe!'
is absurd. Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point
of view, a problem.”
He then concluded that “science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths; and neither
with the collection of observations, nor with the invention of experiments, but with the critical
discussion of myths, and of magical techniques and practices.” So, we need to have a perspective, a
postulate, a theory, a view in order to use it as a base and build our knowledge on that basis.
Islam has a point of view. In fact, one can consider Islam to be a simple system since the whole
religion can be formulated by a simple rule. This rule is very clear and it is accepted unanimously by
all Muslims: Belief in the fact that there is no god but Allah (‫)قولوا ال اله اال هللا تفلحوا‬. So, any critical
assessment of any conjecture in Islam should be in line with this view. There is another pillar too:
Revelations. Any reasoning should be done within the framework of admitting the existence of
revelations.
Therefore, Islamic resources such as the Holy Qur’an and hadiths should be regarded as facts as any
physical facts of the universe. Revelations and cosmology are two sides of the same coin. Any critical
analysis should be carried out against both a) teachings of Islam, as well as b) realities of the physical
world. Of course, all hermeneutical aspects of revelation should be addressed by rational standards as
much as we interpret the forces of energy and matter.
Incidentally, Popper predicted the development of artificial intelligence in computers. He says: “In
constructing a machine capable of performing induction machine we, the architects of the machine,
must decide a priori what constitutes its 'world'; what things are to be taken as similar or equal; and
what kind of 'laws' we wish the machine to be able to 'discover' in its 'world'”. This is very true and if
we want to enter any human related subject, we should note that humans have views, and thus, we
should respect those views. Islam is not an exception.

3.1 Islamic views on the relationship between action and knowledge

َّ ‫ )آ َم ُنوا َو َع ِملُوا ال‬. The
The Holy Quran in many verses connects the faith with good action(ِ‫صال َِحات‬
following verse gives the reason behind the importance of the action in our knowledge.

(30:41) َ‫ض الَّذِي َع ِملُوا لَ َعلَّ ُه ْم َي ْر ِجعُون‬ ِ ‫س َبتْ أَ ْيدِي ال َّن‬

َ ‫اس لِ ُيذِي َق ُهم َب ْع‬ َ ‫َظ َه َر ا ْل َف‬
َ ‫سا ُد فِي ا ْل َب ِّر َوا ْل َب ْح ِر بِ َما َك‬
The mischief that has filled the land and skies is due to people’s action. (Allah) wants to
show them (the bad deeds) of some of their action so that they may change.

Imam Ali (PBUH) has narrated the following quotes:

‫العلم بالعمل‬1
Knowledge (forms) by action

‫مالك العلم العمل به‬2

Recognition of knowledge is by acting upon it

‫علم المؤمن في عمله‬3

Knowledge of believers is in their action

4
‫ وإال ارتحل عنه‬، ‫ والعلم يهتف بالعمل فإن أجابه‬، ‫ فمن علِم عمِل‬:‫العلم مقرون بالعمل‬
Knowledge is associated with action: Who learns, acts upon it. Knowledge calls
.upon action as long as it gets a response; otherwise, it departs it

According to the above selected narrations - and many more – the action is part of knowledge
from Islamic perspective.

3.2. Knowledge is knowing (internal experience) and not necessarily a public thing
Paya in criticising Muslim exegetes distinguishes between ‘understanding’ and
‘explanation.’ He says that the former is subjective whereas the latter is
objective. “However, subjective ‘interpretation’ of the meaning of texts/events
would not in itself amount to the development of knowledge; in the absence of
objective criteria for assessing claims, epistemological relativism and the
attitude of ‘anything goes’ would prevail.” 4 The above criticism stems from the
particular definition Paya has for the word knowledge. As he puts it: “personal
experiences, as long as it remains in their W 2, it cannot be regarded as
knowledge in the strict and proper sense of this term since it is neither publicly
accessible nor publicly assessable.” 5 Also says: “Knowledge claims ought to be
1
Ghorar al Hekam, 15
2
Ghorar al Hekam, 315
3
Ghorar al Hekam, 220
4
Nahj al Balaagha, 1256
objective. Objectivity boils down to ‘public accessibility and public
assessability.’”6
First of all, the proper sense of the term knowledge is not necessarily a public
thing. In Wiktionary, we read the following definition for knowledge: The fact of
knowing about something; general understanding or familiarity with a subject,
place, situation etc. Even from philosophical point of view this is the definition:
Justified true belief. None of other definitions given by Wiktionary has any restriction of being a
publicly assessable; and justification can be subjective. Secondly, religions are not about
social matters. Religions as a whole are about personal experiences of humans in
relation to their Creator.
The following two verses show that subjective knowledge is considered as
knowledge even if they are either personal and not available to the public, or are
false knowledge from the beginning.
)7:62( َ‫َوأَ ْعلَ ُم مِنَ هّللا ِ َما الَ َت ْعلَمُون‬
I know from Allah what you do not know (So, this knowledge is neither publicly
accessible nor publicly assessable because others do not have it at all.)
)72:5( ‫نس َوا ْل ِجنُّ َعلَى هَّللا ِ َك ِذ ًبا‬
ُ ِ ‫َوأَ َّنا َظ َن َّنا أَن لَّن َتقُول َ اإْل‬
We thought Humans and Jinn do not lie on behalf of Allah. (This is a false and
baseless knowledge)
Moreover, subjective knowledge is well accepted as pluralism in religions and
particularly in Islam where the holy Prophet said: The roads to Allah are as many
as there are people.
‫الطرق الى هللا بعدد انفاس الخالئق‬
3.3 There are theories in the Islamic resources
Paya considers Quran to be a real thing. And according to Popper, any reality
does not suggest any solution or conjecture (theories). “The role of reality is to
act as a referee and judge in assessing the tenability (or otherwise) of our
proposed conjectures (solutions).”7 This claim is not true. Many Quranic verses
provide very clear and precise theories and views. The narrations from Imams
also provide us with plenty of such ideas. In fact, what is called “Principles of
Islam” or Islamic Doctrine, are just such ideas given by our Imams. The
followings are some but a few theories/conjectures given clearly by the Qur’an:
)13:11( ‫إِنَّ هّللا َ الَ ُي َغ ِّي ُر َما ِب َق ْو ٍم َح َّتى ُي َغ ِّي ُرو ْا َما ِبأ َ ْنفُسِ ِه ْم‬
God does not change any society unless they do so themselves.
)17:9( ‫إِنَّ هَـ َذا ا ْلقُ ْرآنَ يِ ْهدِي لِلَّتِي ه َِي أَ ْق َو ُم‬
Qur’an leads (you) to the most stable (solutions)
ً ‫صالهَا َم ْذ ُمو ًما مَّدْ ُح‬
)17:18( ‫ورا‬ َ ‫َّمن َكانَ ُي ِري ُد ا ْل َعا ِجلَ َة َع َّج ْل َنا َل ُه فِي َها َما َن‬
ْ ‫شاء لِ َمن ُّن ِري ُد ُث َّم َج َع ْل َنا لَ ُه َج َه َّن َم َي‬
Whoever wants (benefits of) this word, we will give him so, (but) we will then lead him to the
hellfire.
)49:13( ‫ارفُوا إِنَّ أَ ْك َر َم ُك ْم عِ ندَ هَّللا ِ أَ ْت َقا ُك ْم‬ ُ ‫اس إِ َّنا َخلَ ْق َنا ُكم ِّمن َذ َك ٍر َوأُن َثى َو َج َع ْل َنا ُك ْم‬
َ ‫ش ُعو ًبا َو َق َبائِل َ لِ َت َع‬ ُ ‫َيا أَ ُّي َها ال َّن‬
 O! people, we have created you male and female, tribes and races, in order you recognise one from
the other. (However,) the highest ranks will be those who are most pious .

4. Right vs Left Brain

Roger W Sperry (1961) and then his student Gazzaniga (1998) worked extensively on the so
called “Split Brain”. They showed that our brain not only is divided physically in two
sections of the right and left, each hemisphere function totally different from the other one.
Later on, Mc Gilchrist documented more than 500 different researches on this matter in his
book ‘The Master and his Emissary’. Their work clearly show that the language belongs to
the left hemisphere and the ‘unconscious mind’ belongs to the right hemisphere. The
following are some of these experiments to mention but a few.
 The left hemisphere is the hemisphere of abstraction (Cutting, 1997)
 The right hemisphere deals preferentially with actually existing things, as they are
encountered in the real world. (Warrington & Taylor, 1973 (
 Perceptual links between words are made primarily by the right hemisphere (Shibhara
& Lucero-Wagoner, 2002)
 The right hemisphere understands from indirect contextual clues, not only from
explicit statement, whereas the left hemisphere will identify by labels rather than
context (e.g. identifies that it must be winter because it is ‘January’, not by looking at
trees) (Blakeslee, 1980)
 The right hemisphere is specialized in pragmatics, the art of contextual understanding
of meaning, and in using metaphor. (Foldi, 1987)
In short, what matters to cognitive development are these two different characteristics of each
hemisphere:
Right Brain: Is the world of emotion. It is in direct connection with the outside world and
creates new perceptions directly from senses. The process here is basically an
inductive generalisation. It creates perceptions directly from senses. It is the
unconscious mind; we do not understand why it has reached those results but they
are created immediately. It is likely that the meanings of events, sentences, as
well as views are created in this part.
Left Brain: Is the world of abstracts. It is disconnected from the outside world but is the
realm of models and theories. It utilises the power of language. Please note that
language and logic are one and the same. The process here is deductive reasoning.
Its job is basically to break down every new or old perceptions and make it
unique with minimum intersection with each other. Moreover, it creates and
classifies concepts based on their detailed ingredients.
When it comes to CR, we see that Popper has not distinguished between these two functionalities.
Scientists, usually credit the left one for its logical powers that uses deductive reasoning which are
generally considered to be correct and acceptable. The criticism, i.e. attempted falsifications is done
here. But the right brain is the realm of inductive reasoning which is not generally considered
‘reasoning’ per se. Induction is closer to creation of myth, or at best is considered faith than
reasoning. But who says faith is a bad thing? The very fact that our mind is a product of both
hemispheres is enough to say that both types of products are needed for our journey toward the truth.
In section (3), we emphasised the importance of a vision. This is created in the right brain. Without
the right brain, we cannot expand our thought and our thoughts will be locked in a closed vicinity of
old ideas.

5. What is faith?
First of all, we have to define what we mean by ‘faith’, since it has been used in all sorts of meanings.
By faith we mean those ideas or views that cannot be proved or falsified. Then, when it comes to
Islam, we accept the revelation as a source of higher intelligence. Something that should be respected
as such. But, according to CR, faith is not a scientific thing and has no value. Popper mentions:
“Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.” “Belief is certainly
unjustifiable in a theoretical sense, as I have argued.” But he admits that not all beliefs are the same.
For example, we believe there are laws governed by the nature. “Of course, our search for natural
laws indicates that we hope to find them, and that we believe that there are natural laws; but our belief
in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute
it.” Popper does not fight the existence of faith, but he fights those faiths that are not scientific
according to his criteria. “The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely
and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. I have even been suspected of
being insincere--of denying what nobody in his senses can doubt.”
Indeed, we have good faith as we have bad faith. Some of our faiths are based on just gut feelings but
others are faith in subjects that there have been a lot of tests and analysis around them. Popper says:
“We must indeed reject the view that a belief in science is as irrational as a belief in primitive magical
practices --that both are a matter of accepting a 'total ideology', a convention or a tradition based on
faith. But we must be cautious if we formulate our problem, with Hume, as one of the reasonableness
of our beliefs.” In this paper, we argue on the same line: We need to include our action as part of
knowledge – or at least a representation of knowledge - since some of our knowledge are so deeply
hidden in our ego that we cannot have access to them except by analysing our own actions.
Perhaps Popper proved his point too much. As he put it: “I was interested only in the problem of
demarcation, i.e. in finding a criterion of the scientific character of theories.” It seems that Popper
overlooked the importance or the good part of a faith in his quest for demarcation. Perhaps faith is a
knowledge of a third kind.
The problem of philosophers has always been that they needed to express something in linguistic
form. And as soon as you want to do that, you come out of the right brain and fix yourself in the left
one8. Faith belongs to the right hemisphere. For example, consider the famous argument of Descartes:
Cogito ergo sum. What happens naturally, is the feeling of existence. We know that we exist; we do
not need any confirmation for that. But it is the right brain that knows this. However, it cannot express
that feeling. The left brain in order to prove that the right brain is sensing something thinks on a
statement. The statement itself is about thinking. The result is a proof that I exist! If we want to prove
everything using language, then yes, we need to use this type of nonsense. This is what Gnostics or
mystics have tried to tell us all along.
If we do not have faith on existence of truth, then why are you reading this paper, or any other
scientific research for that matter? We would have not even talked about any event in the future if we
did not have faith in similarity of the future to the past. Without having faith in soundness of our
engineering science, we would not board a plane, sit under any construction, ride a car, or even cross
the road. Faith exists in all aspects of our life. Without it, we do nothing. The action is a testimony of
existence of faith.
I conclude this section with the fact that Popper used this type of faith in accepting the existence of
the world outside our mind and called it ‘World 1’, or W1 in his three worlds. Now, we ask this
simple question: Is the Holy Quran part of W1 or W3? From Islamic perspective, if you think it
belongs to W1, you have faith and if you think it belongs to W3, then you do not have faith. That’s it.
This is the definition of faith according to the author of this paper.
Faith is a postulate that provides our worldview. The right brain is the birthplace of faith and we do
not find it in the left brain except as a tag, a name, a description, or a postulate. But one can argue that
faith belongs to W3 because it has causal effect on our mind, which certainly is the case with
believers. What philosophers have, is not a warm, energetic faith of religions, but a cold abstract of
faith which is located in the left brain which belongs to W2. Interestingly here, we see the same thing
in our brain that belongs to W2 and W3.
In other words, faith is the knowledge beyond science such as ‘I exist’. We may not know, even never
know what we are, but we have a belief that we truly exist; albeit somehow!

6. The problem of induction

In simple terms the problem of induction is this: If induction is a procedure which is logically invalid
and rationally unjustifiable, then how come that every reasonable man applies it as a matter of fact?
Popper discusses this issue in detail in his “Conjectures and Refutations”. Following are excerpts
from that book.
“The Greeks' discovery of the critical method gave rise at first to the mistaken hope that it would
lead to the solution of all the great old problems; that it would establish certainty; that it would help
to prove our theories, to justify them. But this hope was a residue of the dogmatic way of thinking; in
fact, nothing can be justified or proved (outside of mathematics and logic).”
“I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished
from pseudo-science--or from 'metaphysics'--by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive,
proceeding from observation or experiment.”
“As a result, we can say that theories can never be inferred from observation statements, or rationally
justified by them. I found Hume's refutation of inductive inference clear and conclusive. But I felt
completely dissatisfied with his psychological explanation of induction in terms of custom or habit.”
“For the expectation of finding regularities is not only psychologically a priori, but also logically a
priori: it is logically prior to all observational experience, for it is prior to any recognition of
similarities, as we have seen; and all observation involves the recognition of similarities (or
dissimilarities). But in spite of being logically a priori in this sense the expectation is not
valid a priori. … Thus, we are born with expectations; with 'knowledge' which, although not valid a
priori, is psychologically or genetically a priori.”
“But it is obvious that this rule or craft of 'valid induction' is not even metaphysical: it simply does
not exist. No rule can ever guarantee that a generalization inferred from true observations, however
often repeated, is true.”
“The actual procedure of science is to operate with conjectures: to jump to conclusions-- often after
one single observation (as noticed for example by Hume and Born).
“Induction makes theories only probable rather than certain.”
“Thus, the problem of induction is solved. But nothing seems less wanted than a simple solution to
an age-old philosophical problem.”
In short, Popper does not believe in the validity of induction. He simply thinks that we jump to
conclusions. Moreover, he admits that psychology plays a part in it – at least at its beginning. But he
was right in gussing that there was something missing in his simple solution. He did not answer this
question: If induction is unscientific, then how come that acting upon it proved to be working? At
least it has worked in the engineering fields.
Popper puts the above question a bit differently: “Most formulae used in engineering or navigation
are known to be false, although they may be excellent approximations and easy to handle; (yet) they
are used with confidence by people who know them to be false.” And his answer is: “We do not
prefer every non-falsified theory --only one which, in the light of criticism, appears to be better than
its competitors: which solves our problems, which is well tested, and of which we think, or rather
conjecture or hope (considering other provisionally accepted theories), that it will stand up to further
tests.” Isn’t this a psychological statement?
In addition to the above problem, there are other questions mentioned by Popper himself. How do we
really jump from an observation statement to a theory? On what base science proposes and uses laws
'everywhere and all the time'? Why we expect regularities everywhere and attempt to find them even
where there are none? Moreover, we need to have a better model for the psychological certainty as
well.
Among contemporary Muslim scholars, Ayatullah SMB Sadr was the first to write a book 9 on the
logical basis of induction and he also solved it in a different way. He first used statistical
mathematics in order to show that logically, increasing number of repetitions can increase the
probability of an induction inference. He named this stage as the ‘objective stage’. But he admitted
that this stage is not enough to render it as a logical deduction. In order to solve the problem, he
touched upon the psychological aspect of the mind and introduced another stage which called it
‘subjective stage’. He then described how a subjective, psychological situation - under a rational and
critical scrutiny - in addition to the high probability of ‘subjective stage’ can provide us the needed
certainty to accept the result of an induction.
But the very introduction of psychology in a logical field of philosophy, was strongly opposed by a
disciple of Popper10. Here, we have to point to followers of CR that we are talking about real human
beings who have both tenets of psychology and logic. We are affected by our emotion, accept it or
deny it.
There is another solution given by Edward de Bono. He asks us to drop the notion of certainty or as
he puts it: “I am right, you are wrong11”. De Bono relates the notion of seeking a definite solution to
Greek gang of three (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle): “So this was the gang of three. The outcome
was a thinking system based on the search for the ‘truth.’ This search was going to be carried out by
the method of argument. Within argument there was to be the critical thinking that sought to attack
‘untruth.’ This attack was going to use the methodology of Aristotle's logic.” “Traditional argument
is totally useless for such a design process. Instead, we need Parallel Thinking, where each thinker
puts forward his or her thoughts in parallel with the thoughts of others-not attacking the thoughts of
others.” “The Six Thinking Hats method is a practical way of carrying out Parallel Thinking. This
method is of fundamental importance because it provides us, for the first time, with a practical
method of constructive thinking. We now have a more constructive alternative to argument or
drifting discussions.”12
The writer has walked on the shoulders of the above giants and has introduced a new version of
solution based on Islamic teachings. It is very close to CR but also gives a space for psychological
certainty of faith. In an unpublished book called ‘The creative theory of knowledge’ 13 he drops the
untenable goal of search for certainty and by doing so enters the unchartered waters of free will.
6.1 The creative theory of knowledge
In brief, this theory is formulated around free will in all its aspects. Starting from creation of
perceptions directly from sensory stimuli to automatic formation of meanings and concepts. There is
no causality and no criteria for proof of anything. There are arguments, and everybody is free to
accept or refute any theory they face. But denial is also active in our mind. Denial, as we put the term
for it, is a state of mind where it can see a true argument, and even finds it to be true as well, but due
to emotional reasons (mainly ego), it denies its truth. That is why we cannot trust our own ideas. In
other words, we are not sure what we believe in. However, our actions reflect what is in our
unconscious mind and we can use that in order to critically examine what we truly believe.
Moreover, the theory attaches two external sources to our mind. To the left brain, the Intellect is
connected. It is the source of truth as in ‘right and wrong’. To the right brain, the holy spirit is
connected. It is the source of truth in the form of ‘love and hate’. But what seems to be new in this
theory is reliance on a different type of certainty. It is closer to what engineers used to consider, than a
philosophical thing. Certainty in this theory is what makes you take any action. We use it in our
minute by minute decisions such as where we stay, how we move, what do we breathe, eat, or touch.
It is the best bet and not a water-tight situation. So, let us go on and see how can we define this type of
certainty.
6.2 What type of certainty do we use in our daily actions?
If we drop the notion of certainty altogether and in all its forms, then we have to accept that
statements such as ‘there is no certainty’ or ‘nothing can be justified or proved’, or any similar term is
not true as well. You see, in simple terms – and you do not need to be a philosopher to understand this
– without having a ‘certainty’, we would have not initiated any journey for truth, in any form of it. We
would not read any scientific text. In fact, there would be nothing to be labelled as scientific because
there is no certainty at all.
Now, let us look for a different type of certainty by asking if there is any certainty in any engineering
product? We asked that question before, but did not give our own answer. Most engineering results
are known to be false (philosophically that is), although they may be excellent approximations and
easy to handle, yet, they are used with confidence by people who know them to be false. Is this
another cognitive bias? Or is it a psychological problem? We do not think so. Human history is full of
it and they have proved to be good enough to improve our lives and even build our knowledge upon
them. Every time to time, we realise things we believed were not true and we change them. So what?
We should not visit any doctor because their theories are not correct; enter any house or building
because it may collapse; use any mobile because it may explode; etc. These things have already
happened, and yet we use them. Engineers do not see the world as philosophers do. They do not seek
for certainty per se and incorporate to some extent faith (in the form of tolerance) in their products.
So, what we use everyday is not a philosophical certainty, nor it is a purely psychological. Time to
time we have (use) certainty of these two types. But most of our actions in everyday life belongs to a
different category that we may term “approximate certainty”. Here, we have a space around a goal
which could not be defined exactly. But as soon as we arrive at that space, we have reached our goal.
For example, we say “we are at home” if we enter the entrance door of our house. But we say the
same if we are within 100 meters or so of our house and we are on mobile talking to someone far. We
may say the same when we arrive at the city where our home is and we are talking to someone in
another country or very far from us! The radius of this circle is relative and cannot be defined.

7. Free Will
There is no need to say that Free Will and Causality are two incompatible models. Popper considers
himself a believer in free will but not in the same way as religious people see it. He says: “I am
an indeterminist.”14 The difference between indeterminist and free will is in what causes them.
“People who do not agree with determinism are usually viewed with suspicion by rationalists who
are afraid that if we accept indeterminism, we may be committed to accepting the doctrine of Free
Will, and may thus become involved in theological arguments about the Soul and Divine Grace.”
Those who want to introduce CR in Islam should read the above sentence again and again. If there is
a fear of being dragged to any supernatural issues, we should not introduce any form of pure
rationality in Islamic studies. It simply does not work. Humans have emotions, and psychology plays
its role in our cognitive system - admit it or not.
In engineering, we do not distance ourselves from atomic energy just because it is destructive and we
can make a bomb out of it. We try to control it and use its vast energy to our benefits in power
plants. Here is the same. We should not distance ourselves from emotions just because it proved to
be very unreal in some occasions. Without emotions, we cannot progress at all. The creative part of
mind is in its emotional (right hemisphere) side. Popper understood this and gave his simple solution
of continuous critical analysis. Effectively, he has parted from philosophy and landed in the domain
of pragmatism. However, if CR wants to enter humanities 15, which is a broader field than religious
ones, it needs to allow psychology to play its role as well.
7.1 Denial
One of pitfalls of our mind is in its ability to deny the truth. The Quran in many verses has clearly
indicated the existence of this danger. This subject sounds so preposterous and irrational that even the
Muslim philosopher, Ibn Rushd, could not accept it. In his book, Fasl al Maqaal16, he says:
“Acceptance of a (true) argument that is presented to our mind, is automatic and not elective. I mean
it is not up to us to accept the truth or not accept it as we can decide to stand or not to stand.”
Some of these verses are as follows:

ُ ُ‫اس َت ْي َق َن ْت َها أَنف‬

)27:14( ‫س ُه ْم ُظ ْل ًما َو ُعلُ ًّوا‬ ْ ‫َو َج َحدُوا بِ َها َو‬
They denied it while were sure of it due to (their) arrogance and ego.
)6:111( ُ ‫شاء هّللا‬
َ ‫ش ْيءٍ قُ ُبالً َّما َكا ُنو ْا لِ ُي ْؤ ِم ُنو ْا إِالَّ أَن َي‬ َ ‫َولَ ْو أَ َّن َنا َن َّز ْل َنا إِلَ ْي ِه ُم ا ْل َمآلئِ َك َة َو َكلَّ َم ُه ُم ا ْل َم ْو َتى َو َح‬
َ َّ ‫ش ْر َنا َعلَ ْي ِه ْم ُكل‬

If we bring down the angels for them, dead bodies talked to them, and gather everything just in front
of them, they were not going to believe except if Allah wishes so.
)16:83( َ‫َي ْع ِرفُونَ ن ِْع َمتَ هّللا ِ ُث َّم ُين ِك ُرو َن َها َوأَ ْك َث ُر ُه ُم ا ْل َكافِرُون‬
They know the abundance of the God, but they deny them. Most of them are infidels.
)20:56( 17
‫ب َوأَ َبى‬
َ ‫َو َل َقدْ أَ َر ْي َنا ُه آ َياتِ َنا ُكلَّ َها َف َك َّذ‬
We showed him all our signs, (yet) he falsified them and denied .
In order to explain further what we mean by denial, let us see what Popper has said about some
theories of his time. Popper refers to Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho-analysis, and Alfred
Adler's so called 'individual psychology', and says something strange about them: “I could not think
of any human behaviour which could not be interpreted in terms of either theory.” How come? How is
it possible that any theory be so strong that any human behaviour could be interpreted in terms of that
theory? Obviously, it is not the theory that is that strong, it is our mind that has something wrong or
week about it. Popper puts it mildly for astrologists and a bit harsher for Marxists. But the reality is
much more disappointing. “Astrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and
misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence--so much so that they were quite impressed
by any unfavourable evidence.” “Yet instead of accepting the refutations the followers of Marx re-
interpreted both the theory and the evidence in order to make them agree.” In both cases, the followers
of those ideas knew that what they were facing were unfit to their theories, but they did not want to
accept them.
The point is, that we can see the truth but deny them. Joachim Funke puts it this way: “Take smoking
for example. Evidence indisputably shows that smoking is detrimental to human health, but people
continue to smoke despite their knowledge of this fact. Are they acting against their knowledge? I
would say, no! Given even such blatant violations of their own attitudes, people follow principles of
bounded rationality. When smoking despite knowledge about the negative consequences of that
behavior, a person might argue, “Yes, I know about the negative effects, but my family has a very
good gene pool, so I do not assume I’ll get cancer as easily as normal people will.” This
argumentation conveys a kind of justification for behavior that, from the viewpoint of the individual,
is no longer irrational but instead has its own limited rationality.” 18 Doctors who smoke are the best
testimony. Edison’s denial of supremacy of alternating current is another. Even Einstein’s EPR
paradox and his stance against quantum physics as a whole, are all examples of finding the truth but
denying it based on ego (self) and not rational analysis.
But this act of ego is so silent and undetectable, that even Popper is subjected to it. He refuted other
popular theories without any rational reasoning, but accepted Einstein’s theory even if it was
falsified on many ways. Let us have a brief look at this subject. Popper writes: “Einstein's theory of
gravitation clearly satisfied the criterion of falsifiability. Even if our measuring instruments at the
time did not allow us to pronounce on the results of the tests with complete assurance, there was
clearly a possibility of refuting the theory.” He admits first that the measuring was not fitting the
predictions. But relativity was in fact refutable on purely logical grounds (especially on the aspect of
time travelling to the past). Moreover, Tesla, the great discoverer of the time has declared that he has
found speeds much beyond that of light. But indeed, Pepper was aware of discussions made between
Bergson and Einstein in 1922. While Bergson discredited the infallibility of clocks, Einstein replied
by saying that “there is no time of the philosophers” and that all we can do with the tools we have
– those of science and rational thought – is to mathematically express the mechanics of time,
ridding ourselves once and for all of ‘vitalist’ superstitions and contagious metaphysical moods. 19
Well, it is interesting to know that recent theories now prefer that of Bergson’s 20. Nevertheless,
based on the above facts, one can say that Popper’s acceptance of Einstein’s theory was more
emotional than rational.
7.2 Action as a result of Free Will
Paya does not believe in any relation between the action and knowledge: “One needs to make a
distinction between ‘decision-making’ and the process that leads to decision-making. The former is a
type of action and therefore cannot be regarded as either rational or irrational. Rationality only
belongs to the realm of reason and arguments.” But those who have worked in this field do not agree
with him. For example, Funke writes: “Knowledge can be a prerequisite for action but also a
consequence of an action.” And National Geography journal refers to several experiments and
concludes: “It is possible that a part of your brain “wills” an action before you are consciously aware
of your will to direct it.”21
Following footsteps of Popper, we can look at free will from a pragmatic perspective and see it as it
is with no need to find the cause of it. There is no need to see if chance, selection, choice, or any
other ‘concept’ is the cause of free will. Free will can be defined as a stand-alone operator by itself.
It is what creates the output, or as Popper put it, our ability to jump to conclusions. Something
similar to quantum physics. In this case, what should be studied is the action and not the free will.
Because not only action represents our intentions, we have no other way to access our intentions.
This is more in line with teachings of Popper.
Paya rightly emphasises on the following point: “One ought to distinguish between two important
contexts: the context of discovery and the context of assessment.” 22 But what we have said above and
in other places are all in the context of assessment. Again, National Geography refers to Aesop’s fox
who wanted the grapes but pronounced them sour after he could not reach them, and says “your
brain plays with your intentions after you act.” Psychologist Leon Festinger argued in proposing his
theory of cognitive dissonance that “people revise feelings to be consistent with actions”. Actions
and knowledge not only are not separate things but they are deeply entangled.
Moreover, Newell (1981) stated the principle of rationality simply by saying, “if an agent has
knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action”.
“This principle would not allow a person to act against her or his goals. Yet everyday experience
brims with examples to the contrary. People love animals—but at the same time do not hesitate to
slaughter them professionally in the slaughterhouse.”

8. Action
According to CR, action (something belonging to W3) is the result of causal effect of human thoughts
(which belongs to W2) in changing the outside world (which is W1). “The difference between the
growth of animal knowledge and of human knowledge is just this: human language permits us to
formulate our theories outside our skin, exosomatically: this allows us to criticize them. This makes
possible the evolution of human reason, of the use of imagination and of criticism in the search for
truth.”23 According to CR, action belongs to W3 while knowledge belongs to W2, and these are
different. Popper says: “Only by purely deductive reasoning is it possible for us to discover what our
theories imply, and thus to criticize them effectively.” Paya considers writing is the same as our
deductive reasoning and writes: “If a knowledge claim is never expressed linguistically or written
down it will never enter World 3, and therefore cannot be subjected to criticism in the public arena.” 24
Surely, neither Popper nor Paya do not literally mean that our actions are different from our language
and thus will never enter World 3, and therefore cannot be subjected to criticism. Artists such as
sculptors and painters, and musicians use other means to expose their knowledge. After all, the right
brain can only communicate in non-verbal form. Even language, or writing for that matter, both are
motor outputs of our brain. The decision on what to say is made in a location in brain called Broca’s
area and then is transferred to the motor cortex and then to our lips or hands. For example, people who
use sign language and those who speak, use exactly the same locations in the Broca’s area. The
difference is in translation of these intentions to tongue or hand. And the latter is some sort of action
after all. So, the action, even at its basic forms of speaking or writing are actions and we cannot deny
it. Berry and Broadbent (1984) argued that knowledge need not be verbalizable and explicit. Joachim
Funke writes: “Our empirical results thus reveal strong connections between knowledge and action.
Acting on a system requires knowledge about the system’s structure if goals are to be attained
successfully.”
8.1 Action is materialisation of knowledge
We call those people who act without knowledge as mad. This is because normally, any action is
considered to be a manifestation of our thoughts. Worlds 1 and 3 are material worlds and World 2 is
an abstract one. Whatever we do, is a modification or application of our thoughts over World 1 which
automatically makes it part of World 3. This can be speech, body language, or any voluntary or
unconscious act. According to Strube & Wender (1993), “From the perspective of the psychology of
knowledge, knowledge is a competence for action, a precondition. And again, Funke says: “To
answer the question of whether action is possible without knowledge, I must thus conclude that the
use of the word action logically implies the connection to some background representation, which is
normally called knowledge.”25
8.2 Action as feedback of our own thoughts
We have mentioned this before, that action is in fact a feedback of our unconscious mind (right
hemisphere) to our conscious one (left hemisphere) in order to explain what is happening there (in the
emotional right hemisphere that is). In other words, our right brain has a direct physical line (in the
form of neural connections) to the left one which is called Corpus Callosum. Many data available in
the right brain is transferred to the left hemisphere via this connection. However, it seems that this is
not enough and some aspects of data in the right brain is transferred via W3. That is, it creates an
action and the left brain understand that aspect of the right mind by analysing the said action. The
Holy Qur’an gives one such example at (30:41) where it says: The mischief that has filled the land and
skies is due to people’s action. (Allah) wants to show them (the bad deeds) of some of their action so that they
may change.

For example, in a famous story, Ibn Sina (Avesina) cured a young person by naming the districts,
streets, alleys, houses, and names of occupants of the house. The patient was in love with that person
and could not express it, but his body and blood pulses revealed the cause.
Also, if a follower of CR introduces CR in an Islamic field without giving respect to principles of
Islam, this action reveals that either that person is ignorant of those principles, has other interests, or
simply is acting unscientific.
8.3 Certainty Leads to Actions
David Eagleman in his TV series “the brain”, explains how a patient named “Tammy Myers” 26 had
an accident and lost connection between two hemispheres in her prefrontal cortex. She no longer
could make simple decisions. Her logical side was perfect, yet she needed something from the right
brain to make her decide on a choice. Eagleman concludes that emotion is necessary component of
our decision making. Generally, one can say if we are not certain of any thought we have, we simply
do not make a decision on that matter and as a result, nothing happens. We simply do not do it.
8.4 Reasoning by the Right Brain
Contrary to public knowledge, our emotions are part of our knowledge. Dijksterhuis &
Nordgren (2006), claim that the basic idea is that the quality of decision-making depends on
conscious and unconscious thought simultaneously. Moreover, many people assume that their
decisions are made as part of a conscious and logical process, when in fact they stem from instant
deep-brain responses. Experiments show that the brain recognizes the social status of a person in a
photo in less than 40 milliseconds (well under the threshold of conscious perception of around 1000
milliseconds). We register race in less than 100 milliseconds and gender within 150 milliseconds. 27
The Quran narrates a story of prophet Yaqoub (Jacob) in which he gave an order/request for which
he did not know why he is asking for it. In 12:58 -69, when Yousef (Joseph)’s brothers went to
Egypt for supply of food, Yousef asked them to bring his brother in the next trip. Yaqoub initially
resisted it but later he felt that this has something to do with the presumed dead son, Yousef . So, he
asked them to enter the palace in Egypt one by one and from different doors. This was a strange
request that even Yaqoub did not exactly know why he is asking for it, but he had a strong feeling
and accordingly requested them to do so.
8.5 Control of ego (self)
Joachim Funke referring to what we called “denial” in her experiments says: “From the viewpoint of
action, I have concluded that it is not possible to act without knowledge but that we humans can act
—at least at a surface level—against our knowledge! For God’s sake, may all persons in our small
world act in concordance with their knowledge”. This is a fact and the Qur’an is full of it. Even the
word “kofr” literally means ‘covering’. So, a kafir is someone who understood what is truth but
covered it as if he did not see it. Earlier we showed that humans can deceit even themselves. So,
what should we do? The solution in the Quran is to purify the soul continuously and all the time.

)91:9,10( ‫ساهَا‬ َ ‫َقدْ أَ ْفلَ َح َمن َز َّكاهَا ۝ َو َقدْ َخ‬

َّ َ‫اب َمن د‬
 Those who purify their soul (self / ego) are the winners and those who impurify it are the losers.

9. Conclusions
Although this paper challenges the duality of action and knowledge, but it is about deeper issues as
well. It talks about the differences between academics and seminaries on the existence of intelligence
outside human’s mind. Even deeper, it discusses the division between philosophers and religious
saints on the choice between causality and free will.
We started with the need for having a postulate, a view, a theory, etc. in order to start analysing any
new concept or ideas. This, in turn meant that we should avoid double standards and use the same
frame work within each school of thought. After all, we cannot solve or even discuss geometric
problems with algebra since there are more dimensions to geometry. It is here, that we see critical
rationalism, as it stands, is not sufficient to be used in any Islamic subject, or even for any social or
human subjects for that matter. Several modifications are needed.
But before we discuss the modifications needed, let us conclude our own view on the duality of action
and knowledge. According to all matters discussed above, for those subjects that are related to the left
brain (language, logic, reasoning, etc.), action is a consequence of knowledge and a representation of
it. But for those actions that stem from the right brain, we cannot be sure. There, action may be
created before or after there is an idea/conjecture in that part of the brain. We have no way to know it.
Therefore, it is safe to say that such actions are our emotional ideas. It is here that we cannot
distinguish between action and knowledge.
Now, let us touch upon modifications needed for CR in order to be used in any humanity subjects.
Popper not only admits but advocates the fact that our knowledge has embarked from myths. But he
believes in the ‘existence of a world outside our mind’. He does not call it a myth and does not
challenge its existence; he just tries to understand it further and further using scientific tools which he
calls it critical assessment. We can say the same for revelations. It is quite possible that our
understanding of the revelation is as valid as any myth. That is all right. But once we declared
ourselves Muslim, we cannot challenge its existence. We should try to find proper formula in order to
critically and rationally improve our quest to understand it and generally to find the truth.
Based on what was discussed above, CR as it is defined by Popper and modified slightly by its
followers, need further modification in order to accommodate for those mischiefs of the ego (self)
which cannot be expressed linguistically and affects our life by action.
The following suggestions are made:
A system of reference to be used
As it was shown above, knowledge has become subjective by our emotions. In order to address the
effect of subjectivity, we should make a frame of reference for each worldview. In this way, we can
critically assess the outcome of any theory/school of thought in their own referenced world and see if
any refutations could be made in that system. Moreover, this act helps multi-disciplinary discussions.
However, if disciples of Popper hate considering using a reference system as Popper himself did not
like it, they can use what we termed “approximate certainty”. Of course, the radius of this
approximation should be large enough to cover the worldviews of all concerned.

Faith to be recognised
The concept of leap of faith is well used in Christianity. Although, we do not use this term in Islam,
nevertheless, faith and believing in the unseen is everywhere in the Qur’an and hadith. Academics can
understand religions better and can communicate with them in a better language if they recognise that
there is a channel of message, as there is a world of cosmology. This channel not only provides ideas
and insights to our W2, but by recognition, it becomes part of W3 as well. So, the three worlds of
Popper seriously need modification when it comes to religions.
Ethical codes to be encouraged
Popper accepts the role of morality in knowledge by saying: “Morality/ethics and growth of
knowledge are closely connected. Morality manifests its role in the growth of knowledge in at least
two ways. On the one hand, inquirers must regard ‘others’ as ends in themselves and not means. This
is because it is only through dialogue with ‘others’ that one can hope to correct one’s mistakes (avoids
one’s epistemological blind spots) and also get access to unique sources of knowledge. 28 If we
consider the morality are reflected in our action, then we can conclude that we need to regard our
actions as ‘others’ and treat our own thoughts as ‘thoughts of others’ in order to have a better and
proper knowledge.
1
Unless stated otherwise, all quotes in this paper are from his book: Conjectures and Refutations, 1962
2
Translation of verses from Holy Quran are not a literal one. It gives an understanding of the writer and uses terminologies
of the critical rationalism
3
Ali Paya, “Methods and Perspectives in Islamic Studies”, 2019
4
Ali Paya, “The Misguided Conception of Objectivity in Humanities and Social Sciences,” in
The Crisis of the Human Sciences False Objectivity and the Decline of Creativity, ed. Thorsten Botz Bornstein and Ayman
Bakr (Kuwait: Gulf University for Science and Technology Publications), March 6-8, 2011
5
Ali Paya, “What and How Can We Learn from the Qur’an? A Critical Rationalist Perspective”, Islamic Studies 53:3-4 (2014)
pp. 1 75–200
6
Ali Paya, “The Misguided Conception”
7
Karl Popper, “The Myth of the Framework”, chap. 1, 1994
8
Henri Bergson has discussed the problem of falling in this pitfall in detail in his book: “Time and Free Will: An Essay on the
Immediate Data of Consciousness”, Pantianos Classics
9
Ayatullah Mohammad Baqir Al Sadr, “The logical basis for induction”, 1397 AH
10
Abdulkarim Soroush, “Book Review on ‘the logical basis of induction’”, Nashr -e- Danesh, No. 15, Spring 1985
11
Edward de Bono, “I Am Right You Are Wrong”, Penguin Books, 1990
12
http://www.debonogroup.com/parallel_thinking.php
13
This book is written in Farsi titled: “ ‫”تئوری شناخت ارادی‬. Moreover, he and M Hadizadeh have developed an AI model
based on the same concepts in order to give computers the ability of full-scale generalisation and creativity related to
induction.
14
Quotes in this section are taken from: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/
15
Ali Paya has started this campaign.
16
Ibn Rushd, “ ‫”فصل المقال‬, Page 43
17
Also see: 2:75, 2:146, 5:70, 6:20, 11:17, 21:2, 23:69-70, 25:29, 36:7, 54:1-5, 79:20-21, 3:70-73
18
Joachim Funke, “How much knowledge is necessary for action”, https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-
44588-5
19
Jimena Canales, “The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding
of Time”, 2016
20
For example, see “The Order of Time” by Carlo Rovelli, 2017. Although Rovelli’s idea of no time and duration are very
close to those of Bergson’s but he never mentioned Bergson’s name. Perhaps he was not aware of works of this great
philosopher. Popper’s denial of Bergson comments maybe was due to the fact that Bergson was sometimes accused, most
famously by Bertrand Russell, of anti-intellectualism.
21
Aaron Schurger, Jacobo D. Sitt and Stanislas Dehaene, “An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to
self-initiated movement”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 109, No.
42 (October 16, 2012), pp. 16776-16777
22
Paya, “Quran”
23
Popper, “Conjecture”
24
Ali Paya, “Misguided Conception”
25
Peter Meusburger, Benno Werlen, Laura Suarsana, “Knowledge and Action”, Springer Open
26
She is a patient of Dr Paul Eslinger at Penn State Hershey Medical Center, USA
27
National Geographic, A User’s guide, Your Brain, 100 things you never knew
28
Popper, “The Open Society and Its Enemies”, 1945