Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science - And the Evolution of the Popperian Worlds

This doctoral thesis in theoretical philosophy is a systematic analysis of Karl Popper's philosophy of science and its relation to his theory of three worlds. The general aim is to study Popper's philosophy of science and to show that Popper's theory of three worlds was a restatement of his earlier positions. As a result, a new reading of Popper's philosophy and development is offered and the theory of three worlds is analysed in a new manner. It is suggested that the theory of three worlds is not purely an ontological theory, but has a profound epistemological motivation. In Part One, Popper's epistemology and philosophy of science is analysed. It is claimed that Popper's thinking was bifurcated: he held two profound positions without noticing the tension between them. Popper adopted the position called the theorist around 1930 and focused on the logical structure of scientific theories. In Logik der Forschung (1935), he attempted to build a logic of science on the grounds that scientific theories may be regarded as universal statements which are not verifiable but can be falsified. Later, Popper emphasized another position, called here the processionalist. Popper focused on the study of science as a process and held that a) philosophy of science should study the growth of knowledge and that b) all cognitive processes are constitutive. Moreover, the constitutive idea that we see the world in the searchlight of our theories was combined with the biological insight that knowledge grows by trial and error. In Part Two, the theory of three worlds is analysed systematically. The theory is discussed as a cluster of theories which originate from Popper's attempt to solve some internal problems in his thinking. Popper adhered to realism and wished to reconcile the theorist and the processionalist. He also stressed the real and active nature of the human mind, and the possibility of objective knowledge. Finally, he wished to create a scientific world view.

Irritable bowel syndrome in the general population : epidemiology, comorbidity and societal costs

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal (GI) disorder characterised by abdominal pain and abnormal bowel function. It is associated with a high rate of healthcare consumption and significant health care costs. The prevalence and economic burden of IBS in Finland has not been studied before. The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of IBS according to various diagnostic criteria and to study the rates of psychiatric and somatic comorbidity in IBS. In addition, health care consumption and societal costs of IBS were to be evaluated. Methods: The study was a two-phase postal survey. Questionnaire I identifying IBS by Manning 2 (at least two of the six Manning symptoms), Manning 3 (at least three Manning symptoms), Rome I, and Rome II criteria, was mailed to a random sample of 5 000 working age subjects. It also covered extra-GI symptoms such as headache, back pain, and depression. Questionnaire II, covering rates of physician visits, and use of GI medication, was sent to subjects fulfilling Manning 2 or Rome II IBS criteria in Questionnaire I. Results: The response rate was 73% and 86% for questionnaires I and II. The prevalence of IBS was 15.9%, 9.6%, 5.6%, and 5.1% according to Manning 2, Manning 3, Rome I, and Rome II criteria. Of those meeting Rome II criteria, 97% also met Manning 2 criteria. Presence of severe abdominal pain was more often reported by subjects meeting either of the Rome criteria than those meeting either of the Manning criteria. Presence of depression, anxiety, and several somatic symptoms was more common among subjects meeting any IBS criterion than by controls. Of subjects with depressive symptoms, 11.6% met Rome II IBS criteria compared to 3.7% of those with no depressiveness. Subjects meeting any IBS criteria made more physician visits than controls. Intensity of GI symptoms and presence of dyspeptic symptoms were the strongest predictors of GI consultations. Presence of dyspeptic symptoms and a history of abdominal pain in childhood also predicted non-GI visits. Annual GI related individual costs were higher in the Rome II group (497 ) than in the Manning 2 group (295 ). Direct expenses of GI symptoms and non GI physician visits ranged between 98M for Rome II and 230M for Manning 2 criteria. Conclusions: The prevalence of IBS varies substantially depending on the criteria applied. Rome II criteria are more restrictive than Manning 2, and they identify an IBS population with more severe GI symptoms, more frequent health care use, and higher individual health care costs. Subjects with IBS demonstrate high rates of psychiatric and somatic comorbidity regardless of health care seeking status. Perceived symptom severity rather than psychiatric comorbidity predicts health care seeking for GI symptoms. IBS incurs considerable medical costs. The direct GI and non-GI costs are equivalent to up to 5% of outpatient health care and medicine costs in Finland. A more integral approach to IBS by physicians, accounting also for comorbid conditions, may produce a more favourable course in IBS patients and reduce health care expenditures.