Re: Freud & Assessing Un-Blinded Experimentation

[Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hari Kumar" <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


> By the way:
> Is Ian is still reading - thx for your reply! But the poor benighted
> ML-ist [Hereafter PBML-ist] did not get what it/she/he wanted. So - yes
> that quotation was certainly expressive of Popper. What i was driving at
> - was that you you were saying that there was a lot of literature
> 'attacking' [paraphrase of PBML-ist] Popper. ti sounded as you were
> talking that this emanated from "respectable" Philosophical sources.
> Please cite!
> Cheers, H

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

KP's output was pretty huge so he had plenty of detractors as well as
friends; the below are some of what I have that dealt with the debates:


Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence by David Miller [quite
sympathetic]

The Philosophy of Science ed. by Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper & J.D. Trout
[Popper selections with critiques, but mainly a huge compendium of 20th
century phil. of science debate up to 1991, even as it leaves out quite a
bit - only 2 pages on AI, zilch on simulation yada yada]

Evolutionary Epistemology, Theory of Rationality and the Sociology of
Knowledge ed. by Gerard Radnitzky & W.W. Bartley III [the second section
is where Popperians try to come to terms with self-reference even as their
mentor elides the issue in his two contributions]

Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents by Steve Fuller and Social
Epistemology by same [ latter goes into the demarcation/reflexivity
problems in interesting ways]


That'll keep you busy and dizzy; obviously there more dead trees filled
with stuff..........

Ian