"Well Jim Devine has complicated things again.
'2+2=4' is a very different kind of 'fact' (analytic
in the Kanitian sense) thans is say the number of
people who died in certain kinds of structures"
It's my job to make things complicated. :-)
My point was simply that I think we've been asking
3 responses to Barkley's recent contribution to the ongoing "fact
vs. value" discussion.
1) According to philosopher W.V.O. Quine (I forget the cite but I
can retrieve it from home if anyone is interested), the "analytic vs.
synthetic" distinction is even murkier than Barkley suggests. In
te
Well Jim Devine has complicated things again.
"2+2=4" is a very different kind of "fact" (analytic
in the Kanitian sense) thans is say the number of
people who died in certain kinds of structures (call
them camps) within certain time-space zones (those
under "German control" during World War
Bill writes:
>
> what i have been leading up to is this: gil says i insulted him by saying he
> was mainstream but still maintains the popperian line that testing is
> achievable using objectified data.
For what it's worth, this representation is doubly inaccurate.
Dear Barkley
i was surely not giving any credence to the denials - spare the thought. i have
said that events can even be shared across value groups.
but ultimately to go from an acknowledgment of what we choose to term events
(without any certainty that anything exists i should add), to using t
Response to Bill Mitchell (34 lines):
I agree that using neoclassical economics or not is=20
to a large degree a matter of "theology." This can be
seen in that it is impossible to "falsify" the law of
supply nand demand (Popperian criterion). Go ahead and=20
try. That does not mean, howeve
3 Points and strands, semi-long:
1) In response to Bruce M.'s request , here is an atte
attemptted precis of my long message to Alan Isaac
offnet (to which he gave me a long response; we are
not too far apart at this point, although he may not
concur with that assessment).
There are two ca
