It's not a current debate, but the effects of Popper's position persist. Furthermore, there are a number of Popperians. I know a bunch of them here in Washington and via the Internet. They are either social democrats, liberals, or libertarians. My conclusion from dealing with them is that, like many other liberals, they dwell in an ideological world of make-believe. For all of their advocacy of criticism, they remain remarkably uncritical about the central issues. And for this reason, the mentality as well as the methodology involved, remain a current concern. Furthermore, Popperian epistemology replicates the problem of epistemology in general: its purely formalist approach renders it practically useless. Adorno, not always clearly, addresses this problem in his contributions to the Positivist Dispute (Positivismusstreit).
There is some secondary literature in English on the Positivismusstreit, but it seems to have largely disappeared down the memory hole. Yet it remains pertinent to the ideologies of science today. Furthermore, there is the current deliberation on analytical and continental philosophy in the Anglo-American world. 'Continental philosophy' is an artificial construct designed to exclude Marxism while now selectively allowing certain figures into the realm of philosophical consideration. But the Positivismusstreit already embodied this confrontation of two traditions when it was initiated 47 years ago! Popper and the Frankfurt School embodied the most illustrious currents of both camps. Analysis of what was at stake in that debate is far more interesting to me than all the BS wasted on coming to terms with 'continental philosophy' from the standpoint of the analytic perspective, and conversely, attempts of the latter to colonize the former. At 07:12 PM 9/16/2008, CeJ wrote: >That seems like such a weak way to attack the position--personal >inconsistency. > >Is it really even a current debate? In the analytic tradition, after >Lakatos and Feyerabend, Popper--on what is a science and how it >works--is thoroughly demolished. > >In the non-philosophical 'mainstream', Marxism is usually attacked as >a form of political philosophy leading to totalitarian states that are >in conflict with 'human nature' and the 'progress of freedom'. Most >people have never followed the 'philosophy of science' critiques >anyway. > >The wider discussion worth having would be about experimental methods, >quantification and knowledge claims since the social sciences have >pursued the former two and yet rely mostly on ideologically >predisposed argument and academic status and little else to make >knowledge claims, none of which have any hope of generalizing. > >CJ > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
