This is one more reason I am happy to be a lawyer. I don't have to be respectful to tedious ongoing conversations in philosophy that ought to have been ended years or decades ago, merely because you can't drive a stake through their hearts in the journals. I am getting more Rortyian every day about this sort of thing. Maybe it's sophomoric. But I'll need to be shown -- briefly please! -- that I've overlooked an important reason not to say, so fucking what? The fact that illiterates (I don't meany anyone here) continue to chat about this is not a reason. jks
Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen"
> Popper never through that individual hypotheses could be falsified
atomistically; his discussion of holism in Conjectures and Refutations is
very early and very good. Others got entangled in this dumb debate because
they couldn't read or felt that they needed something to argue about.
Anyway, the issue is conclusively settled now, science is holistic,
falsification is never conclusive. So fucking what? jks
>
=======================
"Moses, you come down of that mountain right this minute and eat your
supper. I don't care if you've been chiseling tablets with your friend Mr.
YHWH all day. Get down here right this minute."
Really, you'll have to come up with a better conversation stopper than
that as the physicists etc. have been
trying that with philosophers of
science for 300 years now to no avail. And we weren't talking about 'now'
we were talking about Freudian Vienna and how philosophers and scientists
wrestled with issues then. But then, 2020 hindsight can always be
sophomorically smug.
Chill dude.
Ian