[Marxism] Re: Popper

["paul illich" <paul_illich@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Nestor,

you wrote of Popper:

> This is why he can't consider "evolution" scientific.  Of course he can't
> test it.  Nobody can, unless one has an alternative planet to play with.

Frankly, I doubt that Popper would have found the theory of the
Big bang to be "science" as such either - philosophy; mysticism;
eschatology; pseudo-creationism perhaps, but science, no.

An alternative planet is interesting here - I'm afraid that it would
prove nothing, as the experience in one place cannot be taken as read to
apply similarly elsewhere, even where initial conditions seem very
similar. A large number of planet all producing the same result would
give seeming strength to the theory - and here is where Popper annoyingly
pulls the rug out: it still "proves" nothing, just as the sun rising
every day in living memory proves nothing about it's rising tomorrow.
We all view this as a reasonable hypothesis, and will act accordingly,
but, just as self-labelled solipsists will jump out from the path of
a runaway tram, philosophically speaking I still accept that the
sun rising tomorrow is not a scientific certainty, just very very
probable based on past experience.

Again, vis your pun, I don't beliee that Popper did not accept evolution
as a fact, merely that the darwinian "why and how" did not satisfy his
idea of what a scientific theory was, but rather of what a philosophical
theory was. I have not seen any evidence that Popper denied the likely
probability of evolution based on the circumstantial evidence. He would
probably be mortified by the creationist-designist camp using this
circumstantiality as a weapon quite falsely as if an idea not being
science qua science means that it has no more weight than Rosie Lee's
tea-leaves. This patently does not follow, and I think we must stand our
ground in the face of the creationist-designist loons, not run the other
way and adopt unsupportable polarized mumbo-jumbo ourselves.

Nestor also wrote:

> "It turned out to be fortitious for Popper that the critique of Marxism
> which had originally been forged in the context of the debates of the
> Austrian Social Democrats turned out to
> especially useful for the cold warriors in waging ideological warfare
> against the Soviet Union."
>
> Not fortitious.  Not at all.

Couldn't agree more that this was not fortuitous. Dullards miss his
valid argument about historicism and teleology and jump on his bitter
invective. This was a big mistake of Popper's. I find it interesting
and shameful that his clear-headed philosophy should be hamstrung by
his own hatreds. However, on the subject of bitter invective hamstringing
arguments, steady on there Nestor!


cheers
Paul



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism