One observation and then one part of the discussion that created a
point of interest for me.
1. Papers and presentation texts don't make for very good discussion
topics, but I don't think they are posted for that purpose. I for one
appreciate them more than 'clippings' from the NYT, like we see on
Correction:
>>At least there is the potential of having one's attention drawn to
something in the mainstream media.>>
I meant NOT in the mainstream media.
And a footnote on my footnote: I think of what is the 'logic' of
scientific inquiry in the 'soft' areas I have worked in (applied
linguistics
I am not sure about what is wrong with staying close
to the intuitive judgments of science.
It is only partly accurate to say that falsifiability
has not received any interest among philosophers of
science. First, things are more complicated. The
question to which Popper posed the falsifiability
I have discussed falsifiability on various lists.
See:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2002/2002-January/82.html
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2004w52/msg00209.htm
On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:51:26 -0700 (PDT) andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I am not sure ab
I thought that Popper trashed psychoanalysis and Marxism as
non-scientific because non-falsifiable as ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses
could always be brought in to account for any discrepancies between
the theory and empirical evidence. But perhaps this is different
from holism and the web of beli
