- 不著眼於什麼特質令社會成為有組織的個體，卻硬要將社會內的一切視為一個「整體」來看待，如此「全方位」的視角實質上等同沒有視角，陷於空泛和不切實際 ──
- 對「摸著石頭過河」式的方法﹝piecemeal approach﹞存有偏見，蔑視制度的極限，試圖改變人性﹝「洗腦」？﹞來迎合藍圖中的理想國，削足適履，違背科學原則 ──
[W]hile the piecemeal engineer can attack his problem with an open mind as to the scope of the reform, the holist cannot do this; for he has decided beforehand that a complete reconstruction is possible and necessary. [...]It prejudices the Utopianist against certain sociological hypotheses which state limits to institutional control; for example, the one expressing the uncertainty due to the personal element, the 'human factor'. By a rejection a priori of such hypotheses, the Utopian approach violates the principles of scientific method. On the other hand, problems connected with the uncertainty of the human factor must force the Utopianist[...]to try to control the human factor by institutional means, and to extend his programme so as to embrace not only the transformation of society, according to plan, but also the transformation of man. [...]For it substitutes for his demand that we build a new society, fit for men and women to live in, the demand that we 'mould' these men and women to fit into his new society. This, clearly, removes any possibility of testing the success or failure of the new society. [...]The holistic approach is incompatible with a truly scientific attritude. (p.63-64)
- 中央集權無助廣集知識，當權者在欠缺知識的情況下，唯有透過消除人與人之間的分歧﹝傾向極權！﹞，從而將問題簡化；但由於人民自由表達思想的權利被剝奪，結果更不利於當權者拮取知識 ──
There is a fundamental ambiguity in the use of the word 'whole'. [...]It is used to denote (a) the totality of all the properties or aspects of a thing, and especially of all the relations holding between its constituent parts, and (b) certain special properties or aspects of the thing in question, namely those which make it appear an organized structure rather than a 'mere heap'. [...]The fact that wholes in sense (b) can be studied scientifically must therefore not be appealed to in order to justify the entirely different claim that wholes in sense (a) can be so studied. The latter claim must be rejected. If we wish to study a thing, we are bound to select certain aspects of it. It is not possible for us to observe or to describe a whole piece of the world, or a whole piece of nature; in fact, not even the smallest whole piece may be so described, since all description is necessarily selective. It may even be said that wholes in sense (a) can never be the object of any activity, scientific or otherwise. (p.70-71)
The holistic planner overlooks the fact that it is easy to centralize power but impossible to centralize all that knowledge which is distributed over many individual minds, and whose centralization would be necessary for the wise wielding of centralized power. [...]Unable to ascertain what is in the minds of so many individuals, he must try to simplify his problems by eliminating individual differences: he must try to control and stereotype interests and beliefs by education and propaganda. But his attempt to exercise power over minds must destroy the last possibility of finding out what people really think, for it is clearly incompatible with the free expression of thought, especially of critical thought. Ultimately, it must destroy knowledge; and the greater the gain in power, the greater will be the loss of knowledge. (p.83)
參考資料：
- The Poverty of Historicism, Karl Popper, Routledge Classics 2002, ISBN 0-415-27846-5
