----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, the falsifiability criterion is supposed to be a demarcation test (to mark out scoence from nonscience), and not itself a piece of science, so the self-reference critique wouldn't apply. Crews' critique of psycholanalysis is not vulgar Popperianism. It based on a careful, exhaustive, and really thorough interrogation of the major psychoanlytrucl claims and purported evidence for them. And whatever the genearl faults with Popperianism might be, only an economist or a philosopher of science would regard immunity to empirical test as irrelevant to whether a theory counted as science. jks ====================== I was thinking of it in terms of the whole dispute over the verificationist approach to meaning, which was loaded with reflexivity problems. One can't falsify whether the falsifiability criterion is sufficient to serve as a demarker. Ian
