Re: Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, the falsifiability criterion is supposed to be a demarcation test (to mark out scoence from nonscience), and not itself a piece of science, so the self-reference critique wouldn't apply. Crews' critique of psycholanalysis is not vulgar Popperianism. It based on a careful, exhaustive, and really thorough interrogation of the major psychoanlytrucl claims and purported evidence for them. And whatever the genearl faults with Popperianism might be, only an economist or a philosopher of science would regard immunity to empirical test as irrelevant to whether a theory counted as science. jks

Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Devine, James"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews


> I noticed that a major element of Crews' critique of Freudianism (in the
New
> York REVIEW OF BOOKS a few years ago) is that it can't be falsified
> (following Popper's criterion). Unfortunately, this seems to apply to
_all_
> of social science (and to Popper).

======================

Popper deplored the issue of reflexivity and self-reference from the
moment it was turned on his own conjectures...........

Ian

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).