Re: Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews

[Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>



> 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

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

What, and perpetuate the interminableness of the issues involved? I think
otherwise on the sfw, that's all. Again the issue was regarding Freud and
the early Popperian reaction which was about the atomicity of assertions
and how many false propositions before a theory was kicked in the
grave-Popper's included via reflexivity, not the subsequent 70+ years of
clarifications...........

Btw, the Rorty-izing of law and economics would be a healthy 'research
program' for younger theorists to explore. They could improve upon Wade
Hands somewhat halting first steps.

Ian