I'm not getting
that Rortyian. For reasons that are obscure to me, I still find it worthwile to talk about philosophy of science, even about Popper. What I'm saying sfw to is the point of a concession I am -- and Popperwas -- happy to make, but which some critics seem to regard, mysteriously, as crushing to Popper's whole idea of suggesting falsifiability as demarcation criterion for what count as science. Yes, Popper admitted that science is holistic, that you can save any proposotion by making becesasry changes elses. He admitted that, therefore, falsification cannot be atomic, proposition by proposition, and can only be tentative and propvision, not conclusive. He disputed, however, that this meant that therefore there was no point in talking about falsifiability, or that it could not be the demarcation criterion, or that there was no demarcation criterion. I think he was right both in his concession and his conclusions about its limited effect. If you think
otherwise, explain why. Other it's swf?. Right? jks
Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen"
> 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
=================
I'll be the first to admit Galileo and Newton got on with their work just
fine without a Carnap or Popper armchair quarterbacking their strategies
of inquiry, but remember, you're
the guy who did the stuff professionally
so you oughta know. :-). I left the game before you did, does that give me
the right to say sfw to your take on the issue?
One can always say so fucking what about legal theory as well and the
various institutional messes that have flowed from such theorizing. Let's
Rorty-ize the law [and economics too], shall we? :-)
Ian