Hi Jim Given what I have studied of BT and given his failure to participate more actively in the Vienna Circle I have been of the opinion that he was not a verificationist.
The admiration, and apparent benign relationship between Popper and BT, I would have thought, might even indicate that he was closer to Popper than A.J. Ayer. Paddy Hackett ---------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Farmelant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:10 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 11:47:50 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi > > Given that Bertrand Russell rejected verificationism as the > criterion as to > what is science, can you tell me what was his criterion or criteria > for > identifying science as against non-science was? What makes you think that Russell wasn't a verificationist? It seems to me that his logical atomism was at least by implication, verificationist. > > > Paddy Hackett > > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > [email protected] > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
