I was simply pointing out that the Logical Positivist argument is not as simplistic as Popper stated it, and that, Carnap said immediately said: "of course, falsifiable!" The Peirce family were very well aware of experimental variation and error during verification. Benjamin Peirce's "Criterion" on dealing with statistical outliers is ready evidence of that. But this pragmatic does not invalidate the primary importance of verification per se.
They were only wrong (mathematically and in terms of logical syntax) in terms of a dependency upon the truth method, as Godel showed emphatically (in my view). The moment you introduce the notion of "this" and "that," of "true" and "false" you, of pure mathematical necessity it may be claimed, fall into dualism and the detached mind. And this is a fault also of Charles Peirce, although he can be said to have been "less wrong" overall because he was following his father with his notion of "third." But as you probably know, there is no ready way to deal with this idea with syntactic rigor. It remains a conception of the mind, while reading linear operations as dyadic. Regards, Steven On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2015, at 4:27 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > > You maline Logical Positive here with a historical confusion. Carnap > immediately pointed out to Popper, of course, falsifiable. Popper's > complaint was a noisy no-op. > > > Sorry, something is missing here. Could you expand a bit? > > I’m well aware of Carnap replying to Popper and Popper just being wrong. > (Popper to me is the most overrated figure of the 20th century) I don’t > think I was saying that at all. Rather I was giving some reasons why Popper > was just off. It really was Quine who I think makes things more complex for > Carnap. But of course the positivists have become the straw men of > philosophy with people at best conflating the early Neurath or Carnap with > their mature thought. > > They’re still wrong in my view, but wrong in much more subtle ways than is > usually presented. As I said I think they took the verification principle > of Peirce in incorrect directions - albeit opposite ones from which James > did. > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
