Article Sidebar

Submitted
May 1, 2023
Accepted
August 29, 2024
Published
September 4, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 193 Download : 128

Main Article Content

Abstract

Kuntowijoyo has significantly influenced scholars in Indonesia, particularly in the realm of legal studies, through his concept of prophetic social science. This concept gave rise to Prophetic Law, a legal ideology that seeks to address societal issues by grounding legal principles in transcendental values. Prophetic Law emerges not just as a theoretical framework but as a practical ideology aimed at reforming and advancing legal science to solve contemporary problems. However, for Prophetic Law to be recognized as a valid and robust field of science, it must withstand rigorous testing, particularly through the process of falsification, as proposed by Karl Popper.  This study aims to explore two critical aspects: first, the applicability of Popper's falsification theory to Prophetic Law, and second, the positioning and significance of Prophetic Law within Popper's three worlds of science. To investigate these aspects, a conceptual approach is employed, linking the principles of Prophetic Law with Popper's theories and delving into the philosophy of science to offer a comprehensive analysis. The study concludes that Popper's falsification principle is indeed relevant and necessary for testing the validity of Prophetic Law. Furthermore, in the context of Popper's three worlds of science, Prophetic Law currently resides in the second world, which is characterized by subjective ideas or what Popper refers to as "people's work." For Prophetic Law to evolve and become a universally accepted and applied legal framework, it must transition from the second world to the third world, where knowledge is objective and accessible to society at large.

Keywords

Prophetic Law Falsification Three Worlds of Science

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Muhammad Erfa Redhani

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

How to Cite
Redhani, M. E. (2024). Science and Prophetic Law: Karl Popper’s Falsification Principle and Three Worlds of Science. Prophetic Law Review, 6(1), 98–119. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol6.iss1.art5
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Absori. Pemikiran Hukum Profetik: Ragam Paradigma Menuju Hukum Berketuhanan. Solo: Media Ruas, 2018. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=1BiJzwEACAAJ.

  2. Aburaera, Sukarno, Muhadar, and Maskun. Filsafat Hukum: Teori Dan Praktik. 3rd ed. Jakarta: Kencana, 2015.

  3. Alkostar, Artidjo. Metode Penelitian Hukum Profetik. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: FH UII Press, 2018.

  4. Ash-shidiqqi, Ellectrananda Anugerah. “Meneropong Ilmu Hukum Profetik: Penegakan Hukum Yang Berketuhanan.” Amnesti Jurnal Hukum 2, no. 1 (February 24, 2020): 33–42. https://doi.org/10.37729/amnesti.v2i1.701.

  5. Asyikin, Nehru. “Legal Politics of Bureaucratic Reform in Really Good Governance According to Prophetical Law.” Legality : Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 28, no. 1 (March 30, 2020): 81–95. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v28i1.10393.

  6. Dagaev, Rashid, and Islam Baliev. “Formation of the Principle of False in K. Popper.” KANT 35, no. 2 (June 2020): 148–52. https://doi.org/10.24923/2222-243X.2020-35.30.

  7. Dimyati, Khudzaifah, Haedar Nashir, Elviandri Elviandri, Absori Absori, Kelik Wardiono, and Arief Budiono. “Indonesia as a Legal Welfare State: A Prophetic-Transcendental Basis.” Heliyon 7, no. 8 (August 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07865.

  8. Erianti, Desi, M. Philo Al-Farabi, Selvi Darma Yanti, Sofie Fadma Sari, Suratin, and Sahrul Sori Alum Harahap. “Epistemologi Falsifikasi Karl R Popper.” Innovative: Journal of Social Science Research 3, no. 2 (June 2, 2023): 6799–6807. https://doi.org/10.31004/innovative.v3i2.1161.

  9. Erwin, Muhamad. Filsafat Hukum: Refleksi Kritis Terhadap Hukum. 1st ed. Vol. 1. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2011.

  10. Heryansyah, Despan, and Muhammad Hidayatullah. “The Problems of Law Enforcement and Ideas of Prophetic Paradigm in Indonesia.” Jambe Law Journal 1, no. 1 (July 9, 2018): 91–114. https://doi.org/10.22437/home.v1i1.2.

  11. Hyslop-Margison, Emery James. “Scientific Paradigms and Falsification: Kuhn, Popper, and Problems in Education Research.” Educational Policy 24, no. 5 (September 2010): 815–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904809339166.

  12. Komarudin. “Falsifikasi Karl Popper Dan Kemungkinan Penerapannya Dalam Keilmuan Islam.” At-Taqaddum 6, no. 2 (November 2014): 444–65. https://doi.org/10.21580/at.v6i2.720.

  13. Kuntowijoyo. Islam Sebagai Ilmu: Epistemologi, Metodologi, Dan Etika. 1st ed. Jakarta : Ujung Berung, Bandung: Teraju, 2004.

  14. Lubis, Akhyar Yusuf. Filsafat Ilmu: Klasik Hingga Kontemporer. 1st ed. Depok: Rajawali Pers, 2022.

  15. Mitra, Suddhachit. “An Analysis of the Falsification Criterion of Karl Popper: A Critical Review.” Tattva: Journal of Philosophy 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2020): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.12726/tjp.23.1.

  16. Mubarok, Jaih. Metodologi Ijtihad Hukum Islam. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: UII Press, 2002.

  17. Mufidah, and Abu Tamrin. “Pengembangan Ilmu Hukum Profetik Sebagai Model Integrasi Keilmuan Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum di PTKIN.” Salam: Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-i 9, no. 2 (April 4, 2022): 503–20. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v9i2.25539.

  18. Muslih, Mohammad. Filsafat Ilmu: Kajian Atas Asumsi Dasar, Paradigma, Dan Kerangka Teori Ilmu Pengetahuan. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Lesfi: Lembaga Studi Filsafat Islam, 2016.

  19. Myaskur. “Implementation of Sustainable Prophetic Electoral Rights in the General Election Process.” Prophetic Law Review 2, no. 1 (June 1, 2020). https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol2.iss1.art6.

  20. Nur, Muhammad. “Rekonstruksi Epistemologi Politik: dari Humanistik ke Profetik.” Asy-Syir’ah: Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan Hukum 48, no. 1 (June 2014): 131–59. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajish.v48i1.83.

  21. Putra, Heddy Shri Ahimsa. Paradigma Profetik Islam: Epistemologi, Etos, Dan Model. 5th ed. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2022.

  22. Rahman, Saifur. “Relevansi Epistemologi Karl R. Popper Dalam Pemikiran Islam.” Komunike: Jurnal Komunikasi Penyiaran Islam 9, no. 2 (December 2017): 138–49. https://doi.org/10.20414/jurkom.v9i02.1291.

  23. Razi, Fakhruddin al-. Kesucian Profetik: Sebuah Pleidoi. Edited by Ali Zainal Abidin. Translated by Yusuf Anas. 1st ed. Sadra Press, 2014.

  24. Riski, Maydi Aula. “Falsifikasi Karl R. Popper Dan Urgensinya Dala Dunia Akademik.” Jurnal Filsafat Indonesia 4, no. 3 (November 1, 2021): 261–72. https://doi.org/10.23887/jfi.v4i3.36536.

  25. Saepullah, Asep. “Epistemologi Falsifikasionisme Karl R. Popper: Relevansinya Bagi Teologi Dan Pemikiran Keislaman.” Journal of Islamic Civilization 2, no. 2 (August 29, 2020): 60–71. https://doi.org/10.33086/jic.v2i2.1737.

  26. Santoso, Lukman. “Towards Religiosity-Based Legal Science: Critical-Constructive Prophetic Law on Positivism Paradigm.” Prophetic Law Review 2, no. 2 (December 1, 2020): 221–42. https://doi.org/10.20885/PLR.vol2.iss2.art6.

  27. Sfetcu, Nicolae. The Distinction Between Falsification and Refutation in the Demarcation Problem of Karl Popper. MultiMedia Publishing, 2019. https://doi.org/10.58679/mm99220.

  28. Shidarta. Hukum Penalaran Dan Penalaran Hukum: Buku 1 Akar Filosofis. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2013.

  29. ———. “Perspektif Tiga Dunia Dari Karl Popper.” business-law.binus.ac.id, June 24, 2015. https://business-law.binus.ac.id/2015/06/24/perspektif-tiga-dunia-dari-karl-popper-bagian-pertama-dari-dua-tulisan/.

  30. Susanti, Dyah Ochtorina, and A’an Efendi. Penelitian Hukum (Legal Research). 2nd ed. Jakarta, Indonesia: Sinar Grafika, 2014.

  31. Syamsudin, M. “Berharap Putusan Profetik Mahkamah Konstitusi.” hukumonline.com, April 22, 2024. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/berharap-putusan-profetik-mahkamah-konstitusi-lt6625cd0c28624/.

  32. ———. “Berhukum Profetik Di Tengah Kalatidha.” Presented at the Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar, Yogyakarta, Universitas Islam Indonesia, November 24, 2022. https://www.uii.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/M.Syamsudin_Pidato-Pengukuhan.

  33. ———. Ilmu Hukum Profetik: Gagasan Awal, Landasan Kefilsafatan, Dan Kemungkinan Pengembangannya Di Era Postmodern. 1st ed. Yogyakarta: Pusat Studi Hukum (PSH) FH UII kerja sama dengan FH UII Press, 2013.

  34. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1st ed. London; New York: Routledge, 2005.

  35. Thontowi, Jawahir. “Paradigma Profetik Dalam Pengajaran Dan Penelitian Ilmu Hukum.” Unisia 34, no. 76 (January 25, 2012): 86–99. https://doi.org/10.20885/unisia.vol34.iss76.art7.

  36. Wardiono, Kelik. “Prophetic: An Epistemological Offer for Legal Studies.” Journal of Transcendental Law 1, no. 1 (September 20, 2019): 17–41. https://doi.org/10.23917/jtl.v1i1.8797.

  37. Wibowo, Sugeng. “Integration of Transcendental Legal Epistemology as a Paradigm of Indonesian Legal.” Legal Standing : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 1, no. 1 (August 2, 2017). https://doi.org/10.24269/ls.v1i1.570.

  38. Yunianto, Catur. “Prophetical Law Paradigm: A Synthesis Of Thoughts of Legal Philosophy Development.” Journal of Transcendental Law 1, no. 2 (December 14, 2019): 104–23. https://doi.org/10.23917/jtl.v1i2.9154.