Re: Skewering stilted language and theory: F. Crews

[Ian Murray <seamus2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <dsquared@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

>
> PS: If Ian had been quicker on the draw he might have
> pointed out that Quine thought that it *was* a problem
> for Popper and demanded that you be the one to "explain
> why" you disagreed.  I'm not sure you realise how
> dismissive you're being.  It must be irritating to have
> to revisit ground you thought had been covered and lost
> in the academic literature ages ago, but it's also
> quite annoying for us to be magisterially directed to
> read a 400-page doctoral thesis before we're allowed to
> have opinions.  Everyone on this list has to explain
> the basic material of their own specialist fields every
> once in a while.


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

I enjoy discussing phil of sci. with Justin, but not with Moses. Virtually
all non-Popperians thought the ball was in KP's court and he declared he
didn't want to quibble with words, retreating to his Tarskian bubble.


Ian